TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Drainedsoul Archive

View 3 posts and 811 comments by Drainedsoul on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-11

So you're saying that peoples' lives should be used as tools to achieve your agenda. I.e. it's acceptable to ruin a person's life by throwing them in a cage because it furthers your agenda?
/r/MensRights01/07/13 10:29 AM
-4

Saying that a group of people are treated unfairly by the law, and therefore the complement of that group should also face the same unfair treatment is ridiculous and backwards. Free the slaves or enslave the freemen? This whole subreddit seems to be going after the latter.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 10:28 AM
-27

I think that the fact all the MRAs want to see these women jailed just shows pettiness and vindictiveness. We should be aiming for men not to face jail time, not for women to face jail time too.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 09:29 AM
3

Rape is solely nonconsensual sex. Male teacher sleeping with student = Rape if it's nonconsensual, illegal sex that the government erroneously calls "rape" otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 06:14 PM
0

Which is the just and proper role of courts and other arbitration.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 03:43 AM
-1

Why should he be forced to subsidize a lifestyle that he doesn't want?
/r/MensRights11/06/13 02:09 AM
15

Alimony is warranted in cases where one party has sacrificed their career options in order to raise kids or keep house. No, absolutely not. Externally-imposed alimony and child support are never justified. If a woman wants to stay home and not work and live at her husband's expense, that's great. But she shouldn't come back later and expect to be repaid for that. She was paid for it -- she didn't have to work. If the woman feels like she deserves more than being provided for while she doesn't wo…
/r/MensRights11/06/13 12:44 AM
3

I know it's learnliberty What's that supposed to mean?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:57 AM
3

The only thing surprising to me is that there was someone who didn't think TED was a write off.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 04:59 PM
1

They choose to sign up.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 07:46 PM
-1

That's true, but the military just does what the politicians tell them. Ultimately they just follow the orders given to them by the government. The blame lies not with the military personnel but with the government. This is literally the dumbest thing you could've said. Should all hitmen be absolved of murder? After all, they're just doing what their clients tell them to. The blame doesn't lie with them, but with the people hiring them.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 06:46 PM
-2

motives Who cares? Motives don't bring back the people slaughtered in pointless wars.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 01:08 PM
-9

You had me up until you started in with the ridiculous praise of the US military. What's right and just? Give me a break and maybe open your eyes. Killers, who signed up to kill. It's no surprise that rape isn't a big deal to them.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 03:37 AM
1

We shouldn't be pushing for equal punishment, we should be pushing for no punishment. Trying to drag women along with men into injustice does no one any good.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:12 AM
-1

I say. You say. Are you one of the people involved in the relationship? Oh, then mind your own business.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:12 AM
2

I don't think financial support -- or any kind of support, for that matter -- for a child should be opt out I think it should be opt in.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:50 AM
3

Honestly financial abortion would be a good start, but doesn't go far enough in my opinion.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 10:51 PM
2

You don't correct injustice by subjecting more people to it.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 03:35 PM
1

That teacher in your example shouldn't get jail time at all.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:11 PM
-5

Which doesn't make it less wrong.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 03:44 AM
-9

You may disagree with that, but that's the law. Which means nothing.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 03:25 AM
0

Expecting someone to not do something they want to do is a burden. Moreso when all participants would've been willing.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 03:12 AM
0

That doesn't refute my point. You're implying that people over the age of consent have some kind of burden of care for those under the age of consent, i.e. they are obligated to deny their interests/wants/needs in the interests of the supposed benefit of the minor.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 01:46 AM
-1

Other people aren't magically burdened with the responsibility to babysit you just because you're young.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 12:49 AM
11

I thought I was asking for it -- but not anymore I'm glad we can just go back in time and change our intentions.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 08:10 AM
1

I never said there wasn't one, I said it wasn't absolute, i.e. it does not occur in all cases.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:28 AM
1

We should just make it not illegal. We shouldn't discriminate, whether based on gender, race, or age. Being complicit in any of these is just as evil.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 10:50 PM
1

And what do ad hominems say about your logical abilities?
/r/MensRights19/03/13 10:47 PM
-4

We should be focused on removing the punishment for this from both sexes. Individual responsibility and good parenting, not punishment for people engaged in consensual sex.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 07:50 PM
-1

Which means nothing. "Typical teenager" applies to many teenagers, but not all, and therefore making statements, judgements, et cetera about all teenagers based on this is inappropriate.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 07:48 PM
-1

It's ageist. You're making a statement about a broad and diverse group of people based on a characteristic with which no absolute correlation exists. All I have to do is find one mature teenager and your statement is demonstrably false, do you think that's impossible? Moreover the age of consent in many areas is such that a person may still be a teenager and be "legal". What do you have to say to that?
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:55 PM
1

That's irrelevant. My arguments are based on their merits, not my age.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:52 PM
-11

Oh so you're just ageist. Nice prejudice bro.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:37 PM
-5

Unable to consent by what reasoning and logic. Right, because the state said so. Well the state says men have to pay child support and that only men can be raped too, so better shut up about that.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:06 PM
42

In the case of statutory "rape" he did want it. Otherwise it would just be rape. Which is why statutory "rape" is a ridiculous "crime".
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:58 PM
-1

There's nothing "forced" in the case of statutory "rape".
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:58 PM
2

How would that ever be justified?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 10:40 PM
-5

Just because a state accepts something as a defense, doesn't mean that it's reasonable. Whether you're to blame for your condition or not, it's your condition. Implying that you ought to be able to get away with ruining other peoples' property or lives (as in the case of the "temporary insanity" defense for murder) merely because of your condition is ridiculous and is the epitome of what is wrong with society.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 10:52 PM
6

Everyone is responsible for their own actions, period full stop. You don't get to externalize responsibility because you have some class of illness.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 10:20 PM
1

By that measure the feminist bias in academia is a conspiracy.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:23 PM
1

When did I say "conspiracy"? When did I talk about women being in charge of contraception?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:04 PM
-1

This won't happen. Teaching young men about the reality of reproductive rights would lead to them becoming aware of how disadvantaged they are in this area, which would lead to pressure to change the status quo.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:00 PM
1

Such profiling by private institutions should absolutely be allowed. You got a downvote from me for suggesting otherwise.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:02 AM
12

It's not extreme at all. Try not complying with the state's demands and see what happens. Also: Men who have children didn't necessarily choose to procreate.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:53 AM
10

...end child support? just an honest question here: wouldn't most men want to partake in and/or feel obligated to financially support their own child(ren)? These two have nothing to do with one another. There's a difference between wanting to do something and being forced to do it at gunpoint. The former is what a caring parent does in providing for their child. The latter is what the state does when it uses courts et cetera to extract child support from unwilling parents.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:30 AM
1

I honestly doubt that they "know their positions are based on unreality", which actually makes the support of censorship more plausible. They have this fragile worldview that they've built up -- based on unreality -- which they are invested in and through which they validate themselves. Challenging that worldview threatens that, so they want it to stop. They justify censorship through the typical lens of "it would never happen to me because I'm not like those people". "[T]hose people" being the …
/r/MensRights12/03/13 04:32 AM
5

Well exactly, but especially not people making minimum wage. If I'm not making minimum wage I can easily support raising it because it doesn't affect me as much, whereas people on the chopping block -- i.e. those making minimum wage -- should be more reluctant.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:38 AM
10

People making minimum wage shouldn't support raising the minimum wage though. Because that would be being unemployed.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:30 AM
2

Whether he said "no" to sex or not, he should be able to say "no" to child support.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:41 PM
0

He said that you reap what you sow. Have sex ==> go to jail You reap what you sow, therefore...
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:37 AM
2

You reap what you sow? So having sex is equivalent to jail? Bro do you even think?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:30 PM
2

Nice Stockholm Syndrome you have going on there.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:12 PM
2

Don't pay the Mafia protection money and see how that goes. But what bearing does that have on whether you owe them money or not? Argumentum ad baculum, look it up.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:58 PM
2

No, it isn't. That's like saying that not paying the Mafia "protection money" will get you killed, therefore you owe them money. The consequences of an action do not alter its nature.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:42 PM
2

"The eyes of the law" is meaningless. If the law said the sky is purple, would that become true?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:30 PM
2

I wasn't talking about "ok" I was talking about whether it is rape or not. Don't try to move the goalposts.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:46 PM
1

It isn't rape at all. Saying that someone is under a certain age, therefore they can't consent, is attempting of to redefine reality by fiat. It's a ridiculous non-argument.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:26 PM
4

Calling them a bigot is freedom. Freedom doesn't mean not being called names, it means saying and doing as you please provided you don't harm others. So not hiring males = freedom Getting called a bigot for it = freedom Being reported to the authorities and being coerced into hiring males != freedom
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:28 PM
0

That's not rape at all.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:56 PM
12

Unpopular opinion here: Don't go to the authorities, you don't have a right to this company's money. You wouldn't want someone to throw the book at you and force you to spend your money on something you didn't want, so don't do the same to someone else. Sure, this person is a bigot, but what does throwing the book at him get you? It doesn't make him less bigoted. Just move on, there are plenty of not-bigoted people and plenty of male-friendly fields.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:33 PM
2

We should be focused more on men also not getting jail time than on women also getting it. There should be no legal consequences for consensual sex, period.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:03 PM
-10

Your analogy is faulty because it collectivizes actions and consequences illegitimately. If every resident of the Vatican agreed to murder an American, and "the Americans" therefore nuked the Vatican from orbit without inflicting collateral damage, then yes, the comparison would be valid, and it would indeed be justifiable.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 04:56 AM
-34

Even if he did hit her, does that justify attempted murder? Yes.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:04 AM
2

I know plenty of women who sleep with many guys and plenty of men who sleep with many girls. Which doesn't make either of them shitty.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:03 AM
2

Child support is bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 01:02 AM
-1

There's nothing to answer. I can roll out tired reasons why ad hominems are ridiculous, but what would that accomplish? You seem to (incorrectly) believe that making sinister insinuations about your opponent is an effective argumentative technique. You totally side stepped my argument, and your whole argument boils down to "because people mature at different rates throwing people in jail for consensual sex is acceptable". You're a soccer mom of the highest degree. Rolling out "for the children" …
/r/MensRights07/02/13 05:52 PM
-2

Did you have an argument or just a bunch of ad hominems and assertions?
/r/MensRights07/02/13 05:46 PM
2

Just saying something doesn't make it so, and that's all you're doing. Your argument is of the form "because there is a law it is good and necessary". But I'll humour you and give a counter to your non-existent argument.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 12:57 PM
1

Which does nothing to redeem the argument. A person underage is clearly capable of giving consent. Capability is simply being able to do something. The ability to say "yes" or "no" is sufficient to be able to give consent. The fact that "[w]e" (who?) do not let kids do certain things is meaningless. The fact that something is so is not an argument for its moral justness, and therefore simply stating that these things are so does nothing to support the justness of statutory rape laws. Then you go…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 12:55 PM
-1

First of all - statutory rape is rape just so we're clear No, it's not. You can't just arbitrarily redefine words. Rape is "forc[ing] sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon (someone) without their consent." If force was not used, or consent was given, it simply is not rape. Saying that "statutory rape is rape" is no different -- or more or less legitimate -- than saying that the sky is purple because the government said so. It's an attempt to redefine reality by fiat. It's absurd, and …
/r/MensRights07/02/13 05:13 AM
2

Discrimination never sounds good to me, no matter how "well designed" it may be.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 09:44 PM
-1

No. No one forced her to not work and mooch off her husband.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:44 PM
13

I fully support alimony Get the fuck out.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:20 AM
1

Call me crazy, but I think it's wrong to have sex with someone who doesn't give informed consent. This isn't an argument. Besides which, we're not talking about what you do or do not think is wrong. Christians think that pre-marital sex is wrong, does that make people more or less inclined to accept their arguments for making it illegal (supposing we're dealing with the kind of Christian that would make such an argument)? Erring on the side of caution And where do you draw the line for "caution"…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 11:11 AM
10

Citing laws is meaningless. Laws are just opinions that have been written down, and which morally weak people believe gives them a right to use violence to force other people to act towards their ends. You do not have a right to impose a responsibility on me, but this is exactly what you propose when you suppose that I have some duty to look out for someone's self-interest just because they chose to get drunk. If you don't want to be "exploited" or "taken advantage" of, don't get drunk, or don't…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:53 AM
6

No. The idea of "informed consent" is meaningless, and is a means of artificially externalizing your own responsibilities onto other people. If you don't like the things you'll agree to do while drunk, don't get drunk. This is a simple idea. Don't try blaming other people for taking you up on your offers, just don't make the offers.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:23 AM
9

Sure, a person can say "no, you're drunk", but the fact that they can say this doesn't mean that they magically have a responsibility to do so. Just because you choose to become drunk doesn't mean that you have a right to be babysat by other people.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:01 AM
5

Which doesn't make it acceptable.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:17 AM
9

That doesn't excuse slavery.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 06:04 AM
9

How about just ending the draft?
/r/MensRights24/12/12 04:00 AM
0

And? Computers are a good thing too, should they be mandatory? What is your definition of "fair"? Wouldn't you say that not being forced to work when you don't want to is" fair"?
/r/MensRights22/12/12 11:51 PM
-1

So your "rationale" is finding a choice and saying that since there was -- at some point -- some choice, the right to choose has been validated/upheld. I.e. abortion being illegal doesn't violate a woman's "right to choose" since she could've chosen not to have sex. Note how I scare quoted "rationale". But keep fighting for "men's rights" and in so doing trampling other peoples' rights under foot. It makes you look great. I mean look what it's done for feminists.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:57 AM
0

I addressed the fact that car insurance is mandatory when it shouldn't be. Rather than trying to make an incorrect situation sufferable by imposing your views through violence upon others you should be taking aim at how to make the situation correct. Who got violent? Sorry I didn't realize that breaking the law had no consequences. That's fine then.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:43 AM
0

Which implies that you should have to sign up to the bar and seek to practice to act as a lawyer on behalf of people who want to pay you to be one despite you not having done those things. You seem like one of those people who would class any government action you don't like as "slavery" or "oppression", de-valuing cases when these things actually occur. Calling slavery and oppression "slavery" and "oppression" doesn't devalue them. What devalues them is when people decide that things they like …
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:17 AM
0

Which is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:00 AM
1

This is not something to be excited about. We need to convince people of our ideology, not shove it down their throats in the form of a gun telling them to fall in line or be punished. If insurers want to charge you more for whatever reason and that bothers you, don't buy from them. If you're compelled to buy from them address that problem instead. Don't suppose that your opinions and valuations are so pure that you deserve to use violence to force them upon others. That makes you no different t…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:57 AM
0

Forcing someone to do something they don't want to is slavery. Wrapping it up in notions of "quality representation" doesn't change this. People aren't entitled to other peoples' time or energy, regardless of how much they're willing to pay or who the person-in-question has performed the act for before or under which circumstances.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:14 AM
0

So slavery isn't wrong as long as the slaves are paid?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 12:54 AM
-2

No, it shouldn't be that way. By what right should you be able to make someone's decisions for them and/or compel them to do things they do not want to?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 12:53 AM
-1

Laws don't need to be "rewritten ASAP to reflect the modern world". That would imply that there was a time that the laws made sense, but that this is no longer the time. If laws need to be "rewritten [...] to reflect the modern world", then they were always bad laws. Besides which, corporations are people. How can you take rights away from corporations without taking them away from people?
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:11 PM
1

if you allowed ignorance to be an excuse, then the law would be unenforceable That's not a reason to disallow ignorance as an excuse, that's an excuse to get rid of the law.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:10 PM
-1

Which means what exactly?
/r/MensRights15/12/12 04:43 AM
-6

Given that you don't own the place you should have to find a different place for whatever reason the owner wants. That's like a homeless guy complaining that he shouldn't have to not sleep in your backyard just because you don't want him to.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 09:53 PM
1

And if it is it shouldn't be.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 09:51 PM
9

Why did you get married exactly?
/r/MensRights08/12/12 02:57 PM
0

All gun control systems are failed. It really makes me sick when people come in here parading their pro-government-control-of-nigh-everything views. It's the ultimate expression of Stockholm Syndrome.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 02:56 PM
8

Which -- even if it's true -- is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:00 AM
1

Just for no reason or because you said so?
/r/MensRights03/12/12 10:53 AM
2

You're conflating "legal adulthood" with "able to consent" in an erroneous way. The law does not define reality.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 02:30 AM
7

I don't know much about the case beyond what's in the link, could you explain to me how she's a sexual predator beyond "the person she had sex with was younger than this line drawn arbitrarily in the sand"?
/r/MensRights03/12/12 12:15 AM
3

I'd say the age of consent is valid as there is lots of evidence of underage people experiencing psychological trauma from sexual relationships with older adults. There's "lots of evidence" that a lot of things can be damaging, traumatizing, negative, et cetera, should we ban them too? I know of a lot of people who've died -- I think that qualifies as "trauma", don't you? -- as a result of cars, should we ban them? I know of a lot of people who've been killed or maimed -- I think that qualifies …
/r/MensRights28/11/12 10:53 AM
2

Being born is not "harm". Try again.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 07:03 AM
7

That he owes them something. People aren't owed something merely because they exist.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:34 AM
7

He doesn't owe them anything. Public policy doesn't alter reality and make things true or false.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:18 AM
5

"[S]afe-sex [sic] practices" are not 100% effective. If women want to have children, and they want money etc. from a man to support them in so doing, they should reach a legally binding agreement with the man to that effect. They should not be able to impose it on him.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 06:52 AM
3

In many places, abortions are illegal Where in the first world is this the case? If the mother doesn't want the child, but is forced to by external influences, should its biological father be allowed to refuse child support payments on the grounds that he didn't want the child either? Two wrongs make a right now? it's important not to decry bias by presenting bias. Saying that people shouldn't be coerced into paying for offspring they don't want isn't "bias", it's just not being antisocial.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 06:15 AM
5

A man shouldn't pay child support unless he agrees to, biological father or not.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 03:19 AM
3

So it offends you, who cares? A lot of things offend a lot of people. That's something for your friends and people who care about you to concern themselves with, not the public-at-large.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 01:05 AM
2

I don't really see how people fall for the "feminism is equality" trap when the name of the movement is gendered.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:28 AM
-9

"Free" is just another word for "socialist".
/r/MensRights19/11/12 07:41 AM
7

Citing the law isn't an argument for or against anything.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 06:46 PM
10

No one's saying that the world should cater to anyone. What's being said is that someone's private property should cater to them, which has nothing to do with society and is 100% legitimate.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:08 PM
1

Causing someone to commit suicide is not the same as killing them. You're appealing to the effects of something as a means of defining that thing. That's a fallacy. Just because rape and so-called "emotional rape" may have the same effects, does not make them the same. Being stabbed and being shot may have the same effects, but that does not make bullets and knives the same object.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 03:44 AM
14

Emotional violence is not violence. Emotional rape is not rape. I'm not saying these women aren't heinous, I'm saying that if you start coopting terms as you're doing you become no better than feminists -- trying to convince people with emotionally-charged and -misleading rhetoric rather than facts, arguments, ethics, and morals.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 12:47 AM
6

Well it's not that they're "no better" it's that they're also sexist and pig-headed.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 08:38 PM
8

I'm fairly sure that there are pro-war female politicians. Looking at you Michelle Bachmann.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 06:20 PM
3

I'd rather get a vasectomy.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 06:17 PM
0

Well I've given you ample chance to explain and justify your views, and your responses have been limited to unqualified, unreasoned assertions, refusal to explain/reason, and unexplained insistence that the acts being discussed cannot be compared to other acts even given reasons whereby they might be similar. Maybe there are people who can adequately argue for your point of view, but you're not one of them. The case you make -- if you can call it that -- is an embarrassing mess which "stands" on…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:43 PM
0

So by what rubric -- relevant to speed limits -- are they unsafe drivers? Lol?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:22 PM
2

So calling a hitman and contracting a hit on someone isn't a violent act. I mean after all, you just said their name.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:19 PM
0

Yes. Of course they do. We call those people fundamentalists. So you're admitting to relying on the "logic" (note: Scare quotes) of Christian fundamentalists? Because two consenting adults fornicating is not the same as an adult taking advantage of a child. Go on. Also: Quantify "a child" exactly. Exact dates, along with reasoning why those dates and not a date say, one day older or one day younger. Imprisoning someone or putting them on a sex offender registry is not inherently violent. You don…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:09 PM
1

Oh, how are they enforced then?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:49 PM
0

Oh so not safe drivers obey the speed limit?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:58 PM
1

Oh so there are no consequences or obligations on people on those registries?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:57 PM
1

Can you tell me why you think it is okay for a grown adult man or woman to have sex with a child? Did I ever say that I thought that it was "okay"? Just because I don't believe that people who do something should be met with aggressive and oppressive violence does not mean that I believe what they're doing is "okay". Do people doubt the conviction of Christians who don't want to imprison, torture, or execute fornicators? From a Christian point-of-view fornication is not "okay", and yet Christian…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:56 PM
0

And you believe that taking down the signs would suddenly cause them to drive unsafely?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:46 PM
0

So you're saying that people obey speed limits?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:32 PM
2

Okay so what's the threshold?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:48 PM
2

Of course. Advocating making something illegal is advocating using violence against the people who do that thing. Moreover, if you would not feel morally justified initiating violence against these people yourself, you're essentially using state actors -- i.e. police, prison guards, judges, et cetera -- to bear the moral cost of your antisocial agenda.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 11:08 AM
-1

What's your point? You're trying to argue that statutory rape laws are acceptable because: 10-year-olds do not know what sex is 10-year-olds do not know everything that is involved in sex So you're establishing a criteria for consent based upon knowing what the thing you're consenting to is, and knowing "everything that is involved in" that thing. Given this, can you explain why selling a used car to someone who is unaware of every facet of car maintenance (since car maintenance is "involved in"…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 11:03 AM
-4

So you're admitting to spewing irrelevant nonsense? Your opinion of me has no bearing on the discussion-at-hand.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:28 AM
-6

I don't recall trying to justify aggressive violence. So statutory rape should be against the law, but people shouldn't be arrested, indicted, convicted, imprisoned, or put on a sex offender registry because of it?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:26 AM
-9

How many chromosomes do you have? Right back at you.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:21 AM
-11

I mean there is a clear difference in what sex means to a 5, 10, or 17 year old. Asserting something does not make it true. And even if what you say is true, how does this justify aggressive violence? I mean there's a clear difference in what "love" means to a 14-year-old and a 30-year-old, should we outlaw teen dating?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:13 AM
-12

How so, beyond ageism? And even if that's true, isn't that why 10-year-olds have parents?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:06 AM
-14

Bingo. Statutory rape is a non-crime, like drug possession.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:52 AM
66

I don't see why "don't be sexist" or "I refuse to entertain your sexism" are inappropriate responses. Imagine if it was men making sexist comments about women, would people feel compelled to be "friendly" in condemning them? By trying to diffuse such utter intellectual bankruptcy in a "humorous or kind way" you are, ipso facto, endorsing sexism, by not holding women being sexist against men to the same standards as men being sexist against women.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 01:26 PM
-1

Well both prostitution and pornography are for-profit activities, so it makes sense they'd want to abolish them. Honestly I'm astonished that after the U.S.S.R., Cuba, Red China, the Khmer Rouge, etc. people will still take anything anyone who identifies as a "communist" says seriously. They should be beyond a laughingstock at this point. Their ideology has killed something like 100 000 000 people in the past 100 years. That alone should be grounds to dismiss their ideology outright.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 01:10 AM
0

the bare essentials for survival and progression can be provided to all regardless of race, gender, class or creed, and paid for by taxes. This includes things like education and healthcare. Your possessions, comfort, and material wealth is entirely dependent on your work, wage, and choices. You couldn't even keep that one paragraph internally consistent?
/r/MensRights31/10/12 01:07 AM
0

Yeah they're communists... ...?
/r/MensRights31/10/12 01:05 AM
-2

Or you could just avoid oppressive political ideologies.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 01:05 AM
5

The anti-prostitution rant was shitty, but otherwise the article was decent.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:51 PM
35

Imagine that there are two stores on your block. The one that everyone goes to, and the one that no one goes to. After years and years of going to the store that everyone goes to, you get tired of its arrogantly poor customer service, its poor selection, and high prices. You decide to try the store that no one goes to. Except it's closed down -- bankrupt. Would this surprise you? Probably not. "Nice guys" won't be there forever. It's simple economics.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:35 PM
-4

I would say yes.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 07:46 PM
4

I don't see how this matters. Either abortion is acceptable or it is not. If it is acceptable then the reasons behind doing it do not matter. The only thing to take away from this is the ridiculousness of banning people from discovering the gender of the child they're carrying.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:00 PM
16

...good. ????
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:40 AM
31

What type of man finds it essential that the sex-industry continue? Why… the type of man that a woman would never sleep with of her own free will, of course! I don't think this person understands how "free will" works...
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:30 AM
-1

No actually I was referring to the fact that since both feminists and MRAs seem intent on seeking out more government action -- rather than less -- to correct the problems caused by past government action, you're going to wind up with overcompensation, since government action is reactionary.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:17 AM
-3

If you can recognize that there's such a pendulum and that it swings as you say, perhaps there's hope for you...
/r/MensRights28/10/12 01:49 PM
1

Sure. But she can get pregnant by herself, just as my friend could have broken his leg by himself.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 11:41 PM
1

This appears to be the polar opposite of today's common thinking, which is: the man had sex with her, the man got her pregnant, the man caused this mess, so the man should clean it up. What's your point? I think both the man and the woman were participants, so both the man and the woman should share the cost of fixing any problems. Why? Independent violent interference by the state the risk of pregnancy et cetera is totally the woman's. Why should the man be concerned about or burdened risks whi…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 11:01 PM
-3

And the idea that you can just go to another doctor is a cop out - there are not urologists waiting on every street corner to perform surgery on any random man who asks. So because urologists are scarce, they may be enslaved? Further, if you offer a service to the public, you cannot have a different standard for men than you do for women. Why? if you are a doctor, you do not have the right to discriminate against your patients on the basis of sex. Justify this.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:15 PM
0

Your scenario is one of consensual sex. Let's further assume that the state of birth control either partner is using is properly represented and communicated. So the woman is in one of three situations: She recognizes there is no birth control and the possibility of pregnancy. She recognizes there is birth control which may fail. She recognizes that there is birth control which may not fail. In situation 1 and 2 she is aware of the risks and yet proceeds anyway. Remind me how this makes it prope…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:13 PM
1

If you think that men's fashion is simple, boring, et cetera you're either: Ignorant. Only considering the domain of formal business attire.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:16 PM
6

How are complete financial abortions "unfair to women"?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:09 PM
0

You helped him for free, with no professional liability. How is this relevant? Let's say he paid me $0.01, or bought me a meal in return. What then? And how is liability relevant? If anything liability is an argument for more discretion on the part of the professional, not *less. for example, if the patient had no legitimate need for X drug Why? I have no legitimate need for burgers -- I could live perfectly fine for the rest of my life and never eat another one -- but my friend just recommended…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:58 PM
-1

They only "represent the business or medical practice" to the extent that people attach that representation to them. What happens if I help Mark with his homework, and my help is of low quality, and he fails? Should I not be held to some onerous standard because I represent mathematicians? Once again you just state that there are things that Bob cannot do that he can do as Dr. Bob, M.D., without justifying these restrictions. If I tell someone that they should take X drug, and they decide that's…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:37 PM
-1

You talked specifically about two cases of people doing things as individuals. I said it was not analogous because you were talking about people doing things as individuals, not as part of a business or medical practice. So when people do things for a business or medical practice they cease to be individuals? you are acting as an individual, not a professional or business. So professionals are not individuals?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:59 PM
-1

Individuals are not subjected to the same standards as businesses or medical practices. This is a statement of fact, it isn't an argument for the fact. If I help Mark with his math homework for nothing, why am I not required to help Bob under the same terms, as you propose for the urologist?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:50 PM
-3

illegal Which is irrelevant. The law is not an argument. If it was a majority of this subreddit would be irrelevant. The law in many places doesn't recognize female-on-male rape as "rape", does this alter the reality that it is still rape? Either the law determines reality in all cases or no cases. Take your pick.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:31 PM
-1

Explain how they're not analogous.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:29 PM
-1

I don't think you understand what "force" means. If I say that I won't cut your lawn unless you pay me $15, I'm not forcing you to pay me $15. You have many other options: Cut the lawn yourself, pay someone else who's willing to take less or different payment, let the lawn just continue growing, et cetera. Similarly, if a doctor says that he won't perform a vasectomy without spousal consent, he's not forcing the man-in-question to provide that consent, as that man can make any one of a number of…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 06:51 PM
-1

You're misrepresenting the statement: You can choose whether or not you have sex, but you cannot choose the conditions under which you will have sex once you've chosen to have it. doesn't say that you can't choose to rape other people, it says that you can't choose not to be raped by other people. I.e. your argument vis-a-vis patients and doctors is a reframing of the "argument" that feminists straw man MRAs et al. with. This isn't about the patient's right to choose being superior, it's about t…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:56 PM
-2

They cannot, because this violates the individual's right to autonomy And coercing them into performing a procedure they do not wish to under the given conditions is... ...what, exactly? The fact that doctors exist who would not violate the patient's rights in this way changes nothing about the violation of the patient's rights by those doctors who would choose to require consent by the spouse. Having access to the skills and effort of others is a "right"? They still have the right to choose whe…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:28 PM
-3

Or they could just choose to perform the surgery for those men who prove they've consulted with their spouses. You can get vasectomies elsewhere. Parading someone's right to choose while trampling all over someone else's right to choose is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:53 PM
-3

The doctor isn't requiring anything. You're free not to have a vasectomy, or to get one from another doctor.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:51 PM
-10

They're the ones who actually have to perform the surgery. Their body, their choice. Unless you're insinuating that urologists ought to be enslaved -- i.e. made to work against their will -- for the sake of your choice.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:25 AM
1

There's a difference between "hey foreskins are normal" and "can only imagine". One is a statement of fact, the other is a commentary on the perceptive and/or cognitive abilities of an individual based on a factor beyond their control. It's the difference between saying "we should focus on making education more effective for minorities" and "reading a book is a pleasure no not-white person could ever imagine".
/r/MensRights23/10/12 04:08 AM
387

People really need to stop hoping that politics will be at all based in facts. Especially when it comes to Democrats and social policy -- it's all appeals to emotion. Like with Republicans and foreign policy.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 11:25 PM
-13

How does this contribute anything useful at all? It's nothing more than perhaps thinly-veiled shaming and/or denigration of involuntarily circumcised men.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 11:16 PM
1

You've essentially supported by point already: even if one would break this law, this wouldn't justify physical assault at all. What do you think happens when you break the law?
/r/MensRights20/10/12 10:37 AM
4

See any what?
/r/MensRights20/10/12 10:36 AM
1

That means that in your country the laws are wrong not that in your country the woman would have been right.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 01:47 AM
5

While on one level I feel sorry for this dude, I can't really feel sorry for anyone who has a joint bank account with anyone.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:15 PM
1

How are the fines collected? What if I simply refuse to pay?
/r/MensRights16/10/12 02:42 PM
1

So how is this restriction enforced?
/r/MensRights16/10/12 12:52 PM
1

I didn't ask for your opinion. Where did I mention "opinion" in my question? most people agree with me Oh so you're just going to go ahead and admit that you're wrong? Makes my life easier.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 08:25 AM
0

Nice reasoning. Wait there was none, just an assertion.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 08:24 AM
1

No, it isn't. Using violence to make sure people don't speak in ways with which you disagree is the quintessential tyranny.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 08:24 AM
1

If I had to put an age on it then 15-16 seems about right. This sounds like your opinion. a 40 year old guy coming on to a 15 year old boy is skeevy So does this. I'm not interested in your opinion because we are not talking about you, we are talking about other people, not you. When it's your life we're talking about, your opinions will matter.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 01:58 AM
3

What is "the ideal age to start sexual activity"?
/r/MensRights16/10/12 01:48 AM
2

What's your point?
/r/MensRights16/10/12 01:19 AM
11

Well then you just have to break through the canned reply. Just because someone has a canned reply to something that doesn't make sense and doesn't address the issues doesn't mean that you should avoid addressing the issues yourself. People -- for various reasons -- abhor paedophiles. Not because they want to have sex with sexually mature teenagers, but because they want to have sex with sexually immature children. The perceived violation of innocence that comes with this sexual desire is the ro…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:56 PM
7

"Ephebophilia" is the word that so many are hunting for, but it doesn't have the vilifying properties that "paedophilia" does, which is what the people using it are using it for, rather than its actual meaning. It's like any other label. It's not used because it actually has meaning, it's used because it evokes emotions and overrules logic.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:49 PM
-8

You didn't expect terrible, irrational, male-degrading nonsense from a sub-reddit where "social justice" is held up as an ideal?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:14 PM
-3

There shouldn't be legal restrictions in journalism.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:59 PM
1

So the murder of an innocent third party becomes right if you are traumatized?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 10:22 PM
78

This position is a ridiculous emotion based cop out and is one of the reasons I dislike doctrinaire Republicans. If the fetus is a person, and abortion is wrong when done solely for the reason of convenience, why does it become not wrong solely because the fetus is the result of rape? Does the rape make the fetus less of a person? Either a fetus is a person, and abortion is wrong, or a fetus is not a person, and abortion is not wrong. Saying that a fetus is a person and that accordingly abortion…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 09:14 AM
33

The cognitive dissonance is dizzying.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:17 AM
2

I wish the SPLC would write something intelligent about anyone.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:09 PM
4

I don't buy into the bullshit romanticization of parenthood, so no.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:33 AM
1

Yeah but she committed violent assault against another woman, so there's no one to really favour here...
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:59 AM
1

How? Contracts.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:04 PM
0

Your opinion is too weak. People should be able to "deny parenthood" unless they explicitly accept it.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:34 PM
39

They're grasping at straws here. I don't know why women et al. can't be happy with just not being discriminated against and they always have to makes this case for why and how they offer something others don't. You don't have special qualities just because you were born not-white or not-male, you need to have merits that you've cultivated and worked towards.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 07:02 AM
5

So what you're saying is that you have no argument, but you're right anyway? Haha.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:57 PM
5

It's not a "[f]alse equivalency". Both are acts which permanently modify your body. What the "culture" accepts or places value on is not important. This is not about "culture", this is about an individual. It doesn't matter what you and I, or our ancestors, or everyone else thinks, because the decision in question does not affect us. I can't fault them for doing what they thought would help, because they're my parents. Of course you can, because it was ignorant and disrespectful. People don't ge…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:47 PM
13

Okay so you are totally fine with the fact that you were circumcised. My friend is totally fine with the fact that he has a tattoo. Does that mean that he should be able to compel me to get a tattoo? Does that mean that I should be totally fine with having a tattoo?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:37 PM
2

Freedom of speech bro.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 03:23 PM
-1

It's because "libertarian" is becoming a misused word. You see so-called "civil libertarians" using the word, and people like Glenn Beck, it's lost its original meaning -- people like Ron Paul. It's kind of like "liberal" that way. Ludwig von Mises was a "liberal", but nowadays people who are diametrically opposed to him and his ideas -- e.g. Barack Obama -- are "liberals". At least with "anarcho-capitalism" there is no confusion. You are an anarchist who supports market exchange -- that's expli…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 07:10 PM
6

As an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) I just want to say that r/anarchism is a shithole, and ask why you are visiting it?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 06:24 PM
4

Vasectomy = safest way to go
/r/MensRights24/09/12 06:26 AM
2

So instead you should be able to fuck up someone's life with impunity? Get your apologist nonsense out of here.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:11 AM
3

Possibly the parental status So because you decided to breed you should get a free pass where people who made a different lifestyle choice shouldn't? The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing personal lifestyle decisions, whether that's parenthood or anything else.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 07:19 PM
1

The law should not be held up as an ideal to which people should adhere.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 05:29 PM
23

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "own" in internet/gaming culture comes from hacker terminology, where rooting a target server was "owning" the server -- since with root access you can do whatever you want with it, as if you were the owner of it.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 01:54 AM
3

Good for them. ????
/r/MensRights15/09/12 04:35 AM
1

Of course.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 09:01 PM
5

If the man actually did threaten to kill her (and others), I can't say that I blame her for shooting him. But that's a big "if". People should be able to defend themselves -- regardless of their gender.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 05:09 PM
78

Don't tell us to lock our cars. Tell people NOT TO STEAL. Don't tell us to concealed carry. Tell people NOT TO MURDER. Don't tell us to watch our kids. Tell people NOT TO KIDNAP. Don't tell us to drive defensively. Tell people TO STAY IN THEIR LANE. ...
/r/MensRights12/09/12 05:08 PM
-4

You're right, there is nothing that can convince me. Was he coerced into staying home? Was there a contract where your mother assured him income if he remained unemployed? If "no" on both counts then he -- just as much as any woman -- does not deserve and shouldn't get a dime.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 06:25 AM
1

Nice false dichotomy.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:55 PM
5

Rather than expanding the base of people paying child support we should be contracting that base. So no, in short.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 02:49 PM
2

I just want to point out that supporting "criminals" isn't necessarily a bad thing. We should keep in mind that one can become a "criminal" quite easily, and for acts which shouldn't be demonized or reviled...
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:09 AM
5

That's not an argument.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:42 AM
-3

Why would it be?
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:33 AM
0

What's your point? Just because someone needs something doesn't mean they're owed it.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:25 AM
6

And? I asked why it was due -- i.e. owed -- not what it is called.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 12:15 AM
6

Why, exactly, is this money "due" to the child?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 09:06 PM
2

Bravo!
/r/MensRights30/08/12 04:09 PM
0

I think you're confused about what college is about.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:57 AM
13

While you may resent your son's mother for doing this to you, remember it was the state that did this to you. Remember that when you vote. Your dissatisfaction, your fractured life, that's what the state does to people.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:24 AM
3

Bingo.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:22 AM
1

What do you mean "corrective"? If a below par male is allowed into college instead of a par or above par female, what is being "corrected"? Did that female inflict some wrongdoing on that male?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:34 AM
0

So you believe in sexism, just against women, not men?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 07:28 AM
2

All affirmative action should be rejected.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 07:07 AM
17

I like how austerity is painted as a women's right issue because women use social support programs more. So basically you're crying for equality while admitting that woman exist at the expense of men?
/r/MensRights29/08/12 12:48 PM
2

So you're saying that if someone steals money from me, such that I can't pay for something I need, and then uses some of the stolen funds to buy the thing that I need for me (according to their standards of quality et cetera rather than mine), that they then gain the right to dictate to me how I will live my life/run my business?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:14 PM
2

Then someone should open another supermarket. You're just claiming that "civil rights" and "personal freedom" must be "balance[d]" without a discussion of why or by what criteria. Why should I have to risk my time, effort, and money -- my life, in essence -- to start a business only for you to come along and demand that I serve you or else you'll use violence against me?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 12:32 PM
2

I'd like to see it changed so it doesn't foist nebulous and subjective terms on people.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 08:52 AM
2

So total bullshit. Your work got it wrong.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 08:33 AM
5

Why is it your right to tell me who I may receive money from, and to tell my clientele who they may give their money to?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 08:30 AM
3

Why should I control my private property less just because I'm less selective about who I serve? If I don't want to associate with Chinese people -- for example -- why should you be able to force me? Freedom of association is, after all, enshrined in the Charter.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 08:30 AM
2

There really is not a way in which you can advocate routine neo-natal circumcision in which you ought to be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:39 PM
4

Do you suppose that your disrespect ought to be met with respect?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:17 PM
1

So what does "bodily autonomy" mean, and why is it desirable whereas more generalized autonomy isn't? By the way: Insulting me does not make your point-of-view appear more credible, quite the opposite, actually...
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:07 AM
1

How doesn't it infringe on their bodily autonomy? They must put their body through motions they may not wish to in order to comply. Simply assuming that taxes are legitimate whereas forcing you to give blood is not is not compelling or illuminating, it merely shows that you are content to hold up your unsupported opinions as self-evident fact.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:35 AM
0

Why doesn't he carry a gun?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 01:39 AM
1

So you believe that parents may be forced to care for a child, or to go out of their way to take it somewhere it will be cared for, but you don't think that a woman should be forced to carry a baby? What's the difference? Why is forcing someone to take a baby someone or care for it right, but forcing them to carry it isn't?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 01:00 AM
-1

So do you believe that parents should be able to neglect their children until the children die?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 12:24 AM
-1

But children are 100% dependent on their parents, why doesn't your argument apply to them?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 12:04 AM
1

Why? A person living inside another person would be dependent on that person, so, by extension, shouldn't people be allowed to kill people who are dependent on them, if we accept that fetuses are people?
/r/MensRights26/08/12 11:51 PM
2

So of the fetus is a person, the woman should still have a right to kill it? If this is the case, why don't other people have the right to kill other people?
/r/MensRights26/08/12 03:15 PM
1

Well then the solution is just don't execute people when there's any doubt. Okay, next question/concern?
/r/MensRights25/08/12 12:02 PM
1

close to 0% But is it exactly 0%?
/r/MensRights25/08/12 11:12 AM
1

Why is having them apologize or having them suffer worthwhile? What's the reoffense rate of people who are dead? Rehabilitated people reoffend more or less than 0% of the time?
/r/MensRights25/08/12 10:47 AM
1

Apologizing brings dead people back to life?
/r/MensRights25/08/12 09:52 AM
1

The much-studied Norwegian system is built on something called restorative justice. Proponents of this system might argue that it emphasizes healing: for the victims, for the society, and, yes, for the criminal him or herself. Healing for the victims who are dead? Instead of paying for him to live in jail for 21 years, how about $1 for a bullet and a few bucks for the salary of someone to shoot him with it?
/r/MensRights25/08/12 09:09 AM
3

So how do these women ever plan to get into relationships if they don't want anyone to "make a pass" at them? Oh, right, it's only creepy when it's unwanted. Thank goodness I can read peoples' minds. Would be nice if people just had the ability to understand that unrequited sexual attraction happens, and that just because someone can use force against you, doesn't mean they will. I mean how do these people coexist with CCW permit holders and police officers for that matter -- male or female, sex…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 12:50 PM
-8

Why are you so paranoid about saying it's not about the money? Are you being greed shamed?
/r/MensRights23/08/12 11:54 PM
0

Private property holders should be able to exercise their private property however they want -- no matter how discriminatory -- and the law should not be able to do anything about it. If he thinks that "Ladies' Day" is a bad idea, and enough people agree with him, I'm sure his competing shooting range which lacks this feature will be a wild success.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:57 PM
4

Yes but that's only because people believe that government -- i.e. the falsely legitimized use of aggressive violence -- should reflect what "society" believes. Which is why libertarian values fit so nicely with the MRM.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:55 PM
1

Well no. Taking child support involuntarily is a men's rights issue. Some people want to "reform" the system -- I.e. continue oppressing/enslaving men, but only do it to categories of men that the population-at-large cares less about -- and others want to simply end it.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 12:21 PM
1

Whether the legal system pretends they do or do not have the right they ought to.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 04:48 AM
1

Did you make an argument and I missed it nor were you really just wildly pontificating?
/r/MensRights23/08/12 03:58 AM
1

Can society force people to take care of their offspring or can it not? The question is not whether or not it "[c]an", but whether or not it should. And no, "society" should not force anyone to subsidize the existence of any other person. If it chooses not to, do we publicly subsidize the offspring or do we wash our hands of them? Who are "we"? No one should be forced to subsidize the existence of any other person, but, at the same time, no one should be prevented from doing so either. One thing…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 03:20 AM
0

Neither. We see through your false dichotomy.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:01 PM
1

I don't fundamentally have a problem with that. Which is irrelevant, since we're not talking about just you. Just because you don't mind being "forced to care adequately for my children" (and who defines what "adequately" is? Based on what criteria? And why that criteria and not some other criteria?) doesn't mean that someone else does mind. If forcing people to serve their offspring is okay, why not forcing them to serve other people?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 09:49 PM
1

I don't know. But I also don't know why people smoke cigarettes, and I'm not trying to use violence against the people who do that.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 06:52 PM
1

But it doesn't mean that women have to deal the full burden of a child. Of course not. They can abort or contract voluntarily with a man to provide child support in exchange for visits, custody, input into decision-making, et cetera. What they can't or shouldn't be able to do is foist the responsibility for their decision not to abort involuntarily on a man.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 05:58 PM
1

Every law is based off of what is deemed fair, and moral to a group. So if something is "deemed fair, and moral to a group", then it's acceptable to use violence to impose that on some people external to that group?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 05:14 PM
1

there is no legal basis for your monetary gain. Which means what, exactly? Do things magically become right because they are legal?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 05:12 PM
2

for the most part people do understand and follow a court order. But why do they follow the court order? Let me ask you: If I hold up a bank, but do not actually touch anyone or shoot anyone or hurt anyone, I just point the gun at them, am I still a criminal? If so, why are you white washing the state because "it doesn't come to violence" when the only reason it doesn't is because they point the gun, but don't pull the trigger because the person complies out of fear?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 05:07 PM
1

So you're saying "violently is an exaggeration", when, by your own admission you "honestly don't know" what the government backs their claim on the man's time, effort, and property up with? Besides, even if it is a "sanction", what is that really, and how is that enforced?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 05:03 PM
1

What happens in the employer refuses to hand over the money, or the bank refuses to transfer money out of their account, or if they're paid in cash and don't have a bank account?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:59 PM
2

that requires consent of both parties Which is exactly the point. No one should be made to serve another person against their will. I feel as if violently is an exaggeration. So if the man doesn't pay, what happens?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:43 PM
1

I don't see anyone forcing you to remove your child's foreskin, if you don't want to then don't. Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're not talking about forcing me to do something to my child, we're talking about the legitimacy of me forcing my child to live his life without the bodily integrity that he deserved by right. I see circumcision the same as I see vaccinations. Vaccinations serve a useful purpose and have no demonstrated long-term permanent side effects. You can…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:40 PM
2

You don't have rights independent of other people respecting them. Rights written on paper are not a magical force field that shields you from their violation. Therefore the question remains: If you demonstrate an utter lack of respect for the rights of others, why should others continue to respect your rights?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:39 PM
2

If a mother wishes reliable child support, she should contract with the father for the provision of such. The state should not violently seize assets from the father because of a decision which is -- legally and actually -- made by the mother.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:38 PM
2

mine looks more stylish. Which is your opinion and therefore has no bearing on the discussion-at-hand. We are discussing whether it is right/ethical to remove someone else's foreskin, we are not discussing whether it is right/ethical to remove your own. If you feel that circumcision is superior due to your subjective valuations, then you are welcome to elect to have it done. However what you do not have is a moral right to force someone else to subject themselves to it due to your biases.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:19 PM
2

A crime doesnt invalidate all your rights. Why's that? If you can't respect other peoples' rights, why should they respect yours? The two boys had a right to privacy You don't have a "right to privacy". You have a right to keep information about you private, but that's not the same thing. Once you've let information about yourself slip to people who have not agreed to use it in any limited fashion, you have essentially surrendered that information and they may do what they want with it. You don'…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:12 PM
2

It protects the glans from irritation and injury. It provides elasticity during intercourse. It contains thousands of fine touch receptors which are lost irreversibly to circumcision.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:08 PM
2

And so can being circumcised. Or having eyes.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:05 PM
3

Once you have committed a crime -- i.e. become a criminal -- and that crime was a violation of the rights of others, you have given up your claim upon the respect others should have by default for your rights. This is why it is wrong to lock up innocent people but not guilty people. Note that an actual crime consists only of violating the rights of others.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:03 PM
3

There is a difference between a problem with your body and something natural, normal, and functional with your body. The foreskin occurs naturally. It has a purpose. It is part of the natural functionality of the human penis. Cleft pallets are a problem with the way the body formed and serve no natural purpose and impede the way in which the body is designed to function.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 04:01 PM
1

It doesn't need fixing, it needs to be abolished.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:46 PM
4

Whether I feel that it's morally correct or not is irrelevant. I do not have the right to use violence to impose my views on other people.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:45 PM
9

How is it relevant whether or not you are glad you're circumcised? I am not anti-circumcision for those who want it, just as I'm not anti-tattoos for those who want it. But that has no bearing on the circumcision debate. The issue of routine neo-natal circumcision is not whether it is good or bad, or whether you are glad to be circumcised, it is about the morality of forcibly destroying someone's hopes for bodily integrity and self-determination. I.e. it is about the principle of self-ownership.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:44 PM
2

And? What's your point? Is the father -- or mother -- an animal to be sacrificed to the good of the child? Why does having sex with a woman give her the right to enslave me?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:39 PM
3

her actions were wrong Disobeying someone whose only moral claim of authority is a gun pointed at your head -- i.e. not a moral claim at all -- is not "wrong".
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:35 PM
0

Yes.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 02:44 PM
1

Implying that I am not reasonable or rational is an attempt to substitute insults for arguments, and is therefore invalid as a claim -- unsupported -- that I have some negative attribute not only does not mean I actually have that attribute, but has nothing to do with the point-in-question. I make no self-aggrandizing claims. In fact I make no claims about myself. I am irrelevant to the argument, and therefore, so are your insults.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 02:35 PM
7

Am I the only one who thinks that court orders like this one violate free speech?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:56 AM
3

We should be pushing for child support to be abolished.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:49 AM
1

if your ideas are completely outlandish [...] that does indeed make you incorrect. "[O]utlandish" merely means that they are beyond the realm of what society considers acceptable. Attempting to translate this into a statement about the correctness of those beliefs is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:47 AM
1

So let's say social services "steps in" hand finds the child does not want to leave, what then?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 08:02 AM
1

So you're saying that these children want to do something and should be stopped... ...why, and how?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 01:33 AM
3

I also find that those posts -- because of their visibility and the fact that they seem to attract a diverse audience -- are great places to have discussion.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 01:15 AM
1

not good for the children In whose judgement?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 01:14 AM
14

Maybe? I hate to seem sexist, but given the sexism of our opponents, having women who can and will attest to the justice of our movement is very valuable. This is because men are almost always automatically disqualified from commenting on gender issues unless they swallow and unthinkingly regurgitate feminist talking points.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 12:54 AM
1

Of course you can't. But what if the children are complicit?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 12:11 AM
7

There can never be a "solution" to peoples' feelings. Moreover, something adding to a fear of something else does not make those two things necessarily related. This is like blaming Muslims for terrorism because people fear terrorism when Muslims are around. It's ridiculous.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:58 PM
4

It doesn't make her any safer Just because you feel two things are related, doesn't make them actually related.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:25 PM
1

Refusing to deal with someone because you find their behaviour, policies, et cetera morally repulsive is not "intimidation".
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:28 PM
32

Objectification can add to the fear of an assult. And it being dark outside can add to the fear of being mugged. Does this mean darkness and muggings are related? Objectification is seeing people as objects -- rather than people. Sexual objectification is doing this and doing so solely because of a person's sexually attractive characteristics. Objectification is not abnormal -- it is ubiquitous. Most people that most people come into contact with every day they won't see again, and don't care en…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:26 PM
1

Except "social isolation" is not imposed by violence and is therefore not "coercion".
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:19 PM
0

It is very meaningful. Non-violence means respect. You can build something -- a store, a golf club, whatever -- and admit who you do and don't want, but I don't have to go there. Violence means disrespect. You can build something, but I'll come and use violence to commandeer it if you don't do exactly as I wish. The "distinction" is between peaceful co-existence -- differing ideas and opinions existing together -- or violent oppression. That's not "[m]eaningless". By that standard the difference…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:13 PM
1

As it is non-violent, no, it is not.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:49 PM
1

Lynch mobs were violent. Boycotting is an exercise of free association and property rights.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:42 PM
1

Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing. "I will throw you in jail if you do X" is coercion, but "you are bad if you do X" is not. Conflating "[s]tatements of guilt" with coercion is essentially attempting to deny people their right to freedom of thought, belief, and association.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:24 PM
-2

Sell your crazy somewhere else. Calling someone "crazy" -- i.e. committing an ad hominem -- does not make them incorrect. Right. The women are the ones being irresponsible, not the guy who publicly identified them and rated their abilities as sex partners. Of course you're not sexist. Being "sexist" would mean not that my opinions in this case apply to people neatly along gender lines, but would imply that my opinions are driven by a preference for or dislike for one particular gender.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:19 PM
-5

Tell me, if you were having sex with someone and they filmed it, and then posted the video online, you wouldn't have any legal recourse? There is a difference between having "legal recourse" and having a "right". Having "legal recourse" is no more than having access to a mafia with a reality-distortion field so that the populace doesn't repudiate them. Having a "right" is having a moral case for why something should or should not happen. What if you paid for a full-page ad in a major newspaper l…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 05:58 PM
4

What the fuck did I just read?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 05:47 PM
205

I just wanted to point out that "sexually assaulted" and "sexually objectified" are in no way the same thing, nor are they related, comparable, et cetera. No one should have to be associated with or feel responsible things they've never done. This should really be the basis of any anti-discrimination movement. It shouldn't be about any form of reparations since they defy this principle. It should be about judging people based on their merits, not characteristics -- race (racism), age (ageism), h…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 05:19 PM
-4

You don't have a right to have information about experiences you share with others kept secret. I.e. you don't have a right to "gag" someone else just because you don't want to suffer the ramifications of what they might have to say.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:55 PM
-5

I don't see how it's "[an] invasion of privacy".
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:42 PM
-6

Your opinion has no bearing on reality, nor does your opinion -- even if it reflects reality -- have any bearing on the morality of imposing your viewpoints on other people.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:41 PM
3

Should society coerce No.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:40 PM
-10

Just asserting that "it's not okay" and implying that this is widely accepted not make a case for that as fact and does not necessitate that it be true. See here.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 10:22 AM
0

And if the child likes it and wants to stay?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 10:05 AM
1

Who are "[t]hey" and how will "[t]hey" ban the show?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:56 AM
2

Who is "they" and how will "they" ban the show?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:55 AM
-17

And you -- rather than your parents -- have a relevant opinion on this matter how, exactly?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:54 AM
-4

This is what happens in a country that doesn't recognize freedom of speech...
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:12 AM
7

I wouldn't say he did the "right" thing, but he definitely made the best decision in a bad situation.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 08:53 AM
2

There are many voice recording apps for smart phones.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 08:52 AM
9

I agree. I kind it disgusting but if all people involved consent then we should really have no say in the matter.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 08:51 AM
2

To both counts: I don't care. I'm not going to shy away from the facts of what something is because it's "hurtful" or because it "is like summoning the lynch mob". Peoples' reactions to such things are irrelevant to them being what they are. Emotions, reactions, group mentality, et cetera do not change reality.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 01:37 AM
1

My opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant. They should associate with -- or not associate with -- whoever they want. That's not my call to make.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 01:30 AM
1

I don't see what your problem is. The golf club chose to allow women members, what's wrong with that? Whose golf club is it? Not yours.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 01:18 AM
0

Of course it is, just like a white-only club or a female-only club or anything else-only club would be.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 12:26 AM
5

A private organization chooses to revise its private policy because of private pressure. I'm sorry what's wrong with that? That's how discrimination should be "fixed".
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:37 PM
-1

So they enlisted specifically to go to a country uninvolved in 9/11 and slaughter innocent people? Seems legit.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 10:32 PM
4

Working? Soldiers in the U.S. military are just mercenaries paid directly by the government rather than through a corporate middle man.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 01:33 PM
5

The fact that people still view working in the military as "service" shows just how blinded we have become.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 12:57 PM
1

Neither should be illegal if done by private actors.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 12:39 PM
5

My mother ran a daycare when I was growing up and none of her parents (i.e. customers) had issues when it was made explicit that my father, myself, or either of my two brothers were liable to take care of the kids or pick them up from school. Not trying to discredit your experiences of course, just trying to restore some faith in humanity...
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:21 AM
10

Women should not have to live in fear of being abused, assaulted or raped. ...and men should have to live in fear of being falsely accused, trying to defend themselves, et cetera, et cetera.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:22 PM
1

Okay, what's the problem with that?
/r/MensRights13/08/12 04:16 AM
3

Okay then financially ruin her for the foreseeable future.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 08:02 PM
1

And legally speaking you can't make someone go to jail for something they didn't do... ...
/r/MensRights12/08/12 08:02 PM
8

Alimony should be abolished anyway.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 08:01 PM
1

Correcting people is irrelevant where restitution for the crime-in-question cannot be made.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 08:00 PM
7

Ugh.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 04:09 AM
1

As an anti-"Leftist" the only objectionable part of the article (in my opinion) was the parts of it that read -- in my opinion -- as traditional marriage propaganda, so I assumed that was what you were talking about with respect to this particular article.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 05:07 AM
1

Not being enamoured with the institution of traditional marriage does not make one a "Leftist".
/r/MensRights09/08/12 04:18 AM
3

Those laws are morally bankrupt.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 01:51 AM
1

"Social policy" and "economic policy" are the same thing. It doesn't matter how you're enslaved -- whether being expected to work 3 hours of each day for others, or being expected to only say what your masters wish -- you're still enslaved.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 01:41 AM
0

That doesn't make you right.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 01:41 AM
0

Why would you be "respectful" towards people who aren't respecting you? Respect is a reciprocal thing...
/r/MensRights07/08/12 10:54 PM
-1

Being accused of "bias" by someone who's trying desperately to read an indictment of men somewhere there isn't one is pretty ironic and difficult to take seriously.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 05:41 PM
-1

Just because there isn't an example of it, doesn't mean that it's targeted at men. The article does not indict specifically men, it just happens to use examples wherein men are mentioned because they are the unknown and significant third party. Both examples are from the perspective of a heterosexual female talking about prospective or actual sexual partners, so of course the discussion is going to be about men. The fact that the people in the examples have gender does not mean that the discussi…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 05:33 PM
0

Of course the discussion isn't gender neutral (did you somehow glaze over during my last comment?) the discussion is about a hypothetical person that a heterosexual female might sleep with. I.e. a guy, not gender neutral.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 05:11 PM
-1

How many times do you use gender neutral pronouns when talking about someone a heterosexual female might "go to bed with"?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 05:01 PM
1

Okay, and?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:18 PM
10

I read this article earlier and really don't think it has anything to do with gender...
/r/MensRights07/08/12 03:59 PM
1

My point is that stopping state support because of the pressure put on it by stopping child support would result in problems. You're assuming that it is "because of [...] child support" that I would advocate "stopping state support". I advocate stopping state support because I do not believe that it is right to violently enslave people to ideals that they do not themselves embrace. There is no neutral way to explain away the difference between you and I -- I reject violence while you embrace it.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:18 AM
0

Then the ones who will suffer the most are the unwanted children being born, and those least able to help themselves. What's your point? obviously your life is not like this. Ignorant insinuations about my life are not counter-arguments. Do you have an actual argument against what I've said, or are you ceding by insulting -- veiled or otherwise.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 03:17 AM
1

Absent government our interdependence is atomized by way of free exchange.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 12:36 AM
1

i think we all have an obligation to help them. Then go ahead and help them. I'm not questioning the right of people who feel obligated to help others, I'm saying that whatever your personal feelings on the matter, that does not give you a right to compel other people. I do think any money made in a society is earned inside an already existing web of support and therefore someone's money is always already in many ways owned by the rest of society as well as the individual. This "justification" b…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 11:11 PM
1

giving some consideration to what the consequences of this policy might be. The consequences are irrelevant. An immoral action does not become moral simply because it had good consequences. If I rob a store to buy fancy toys for myself, or to feed my family, the theft is equally immoral. It would be immoral to compel a woman not to have an abortion, but if I want a child -- i.e. a good consequence -- should I be able to compel a woman not to have an abortion? Moreover, even if we ignore that an …
/r/MensRights06/08/12 10:10 PM
2

A child whose parent receives involuntarily provided child support has been granted an artificial right to exist by enslaving the provider of child support. The provider of child support has no choice, and is expected to labour solely for the good of the child -- i.e. they are enslaved.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 09:30 PM
0

It's not a singular focus. If it was I'd suggest "solutions" that disregard the woman's rights or the child's rights, but I don't do these things. No one has a right to compel someone else to do something -- therefore a woman may rightfully choose to not have an abortion. But at the same time, no one has a right to exist at the expense of another -- therefore there is no proper right to extract child support from anyone. This is not a gendered issue. Women who are forced to pay child support (fe…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 09:24 PM
1

Decrying circumcision doesn't shame circumcised men Of course it doesn't, but I never said that it does. Read what I wrote: "[...] any thread against MGM just turns into uncircumcised supremacy to the point that it may as well be circumcised shaming." I never said that threads "against MGM" were bad, what's bad is when they turn into "uncircumcised supremacy to the point [of] circumcised shaming".
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:28 PM
-1

the more children there are being supported by taxes and programmes. Okay so, rather than supporting maintaining something that's broken/immoral -- i.e. child support -- because if it wasn't maintained something else broken/immoral -- i.e. welfare -- would be even more broken, perhaps we should just end the latter.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:28 PM
-2

Nice non sequitur.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:18 PM
3

we have so many laws against things that should be basic common sense but clearly aren't So your solution for "hav[ing] so many laws against things that should be basic common sense" is to have a law which demands that men pay for children they did not want and which they were roped by women's "right" into having against their will? I.e. your solution to laws that make illegal things "that should be basic common sense", is to have a law that makes illegal something "that should be basic common s…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 11:21 AM
2

I'm saying that having expressed a preference for institutions which have proven that due to their mere structure are inherent tools of oppression, you are exhibiting self-defeating, apologist behaviour which cannot properly be reconciled with the goals of the MRM, or, if they can be thusly reconciled, merely leave some other group open to oppression.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 11:12 AM
0

There's really not much more to say. If you've deluded yourself into believing that institutions which have removal of choice, theft, indoctrination, et cetera as their raison d'être can be "reformed" there's not really much I can say to you. You have Stockholm Syndrome if this is the case. You shouldn't be seeking arguments on an internet forum, you should be seeking professional psychological assistance.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 10:58 AM
-1

I suppose a point could be made for a smaller government, so that things couldn't go as far as the feminists have taken them today, but I'd argue that that's treating symptoms rather than the disease and that we can still have public schools and libraries without those things being corrupted by feminism. Typical apologist nonsense.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 10:44 AM
3

There's nothing begrudging about it. Women have children, not men, this is a fact of reality and is not up for debate. It is up to women to decide the terms under which they will bear children, and it is up to men to decide the terms under which they will allow women to bear children. If a man has children trusting that she'll allow him access to the children in good faith, he's naïve. No different than marrying a woman trusting that she won't screw you over if you get divorced -- thereby (poorl…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:46 AM
4

Sure. Which is why an agreement beforehand is important.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:02 AM
2

Child support is corrupt at the core as it compels a man against his will to pay to provide for progeny he may not have wanted and to which he may not have fair/equal access. No compulsory alternative is acceptable as it would still suffer from the evil of being coercive.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:01 AM
6

Because the man is -- in the case of child support -- paying for hear to raise the child or -- in the case of divorce -- has contributed to the child's upbringing. This is in my comment, spelled out clearly. It's like asking why you don't have "complete control" over your apartment when your parents pay the rent -- it's not actually your apartment.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:57 AM
5

Did you actually read my comment? Go back and actually read it.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:51 AM
8

Men don't just deserve custody for having sex and getting a woman pregnant, they deserve custody if they are helping or have helped to support and raise the child. I am 100% unequivocally against any form of involuntary child support. If a man wants children, and a woman wants children and help supporting them they should arrive at a mutually agreeable arrangement and contract with one another for money, custody, assistance, et cetera. The state should not be involved except where such agreement…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:45 AM
-1

Thanks for this. Too often -- you can see it in the comments here, actually -- any thread against MGM just turns into uncircumcised supremacy to the point that it may as well be circumcised shaming. It doesn't suit a sub-reddit that's supposed to reject hegemonic masculinity to be so unfeeling towards those born into an undesirable state by no choice or fault of their own.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:44 AM
6

I don't really understand people who think like this. If white people are "on top of the racial power structure", and society is "male-dominant", why would white people engaging in "serious systematic interrogation" arrive at the conclusion that they should just give up this awesome position? Why would men arrive at the same conclusion? People really need to stop playing the victim, and need to go out and take advantage of the numerous opportunities they're given. This oppression bullshit is con…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 02:30 AM
1

I think one of the main problem with the way women are presented in society nowadays is that everyone has to draw attention to the fact that they're woman. This is just proof that "equality" isn't the goal. If women wanted "equality" they'd just do the things that they want to do (not even necessarily "the things that men do", because that may not be what they want) and only draw attention to themselves as women when someone backwards prevents them from doing something specifically because they …
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:20 PM
20

the woman's right to exist in a world without you in it. Interesting fact: This right actually doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:07 PM
2

it is 100% true that a man who does not cater to women's demands will either be refused a relationship by her or will at some point meet her wrath. That's painting a very large group with very broad strokes. I'm sure there are a lot of women like that. Maybe even most. Maybe even almost all. But I also know for a fact that there are women who aren't like that.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 06:30 AM
4

What's your evidence for this? My anecdotal "evidence" contradicts this.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:45 AM
5

Sure, and most men are content to chase women. That doesn't mean that you have to, nor does it mean that there aren't women who don't respond positively to not being chased.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:30 AM
2

Sure, and that's fine, so long as they don't leech off of a father that doesn't want the child.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:04 AM
4

If you accept that women are a monolithic collective, sure, but that's far from reality. Besides, men get to choose which women reproduce too if you take this monolithic collective view of the genders. If one female won't reproduce with you, just find another one.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:03 AM
3

You don't conform to your "male gender role" and you will be one lonely man. Uh-huh... Because women are a monolithic group, and there are no women who think or act differently.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 02:02 AM
6

the woman has the majority power in first deciding whether a relationship is traditional or modern. How? The law isn't on the woman's side -- nothing is compelling you to fall into male gender roles. If you don't want to fall neatly into male gender roles. Just don't.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:53 AM
1

If my husband had dropped dead or abandoned me during any of my pregnancies, I would still have wanted my child to live. That falls under a different category. You actually wanted children to begin with, as -- presumably -- did your husband. Given this state of mind -- prior to pregnancy -- your family -- with or without your husband -- was probably stable enough to support a child.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:45 AM
1

This of course raises a few questions: In your view, is a fetus a human being? I.e. is the proper term "DEAD [sic]" or "to never have existed", both of which have different connotations and meanings. Does a single mother, pregnant with an unexpected child, without a father to help support it, really "want it", or is she just giving in to instinct?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:31 AM
3

The courts say that two parents are obligated to support a child, no matter how much mommy and daddy are at odds with that idea. Incorrect. The courts say that the father is obligated to support a child if the mother wants it.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 10:50 PM
2

...what?
/r/MensRights03/08/12 07:37 PM
4

And yet the option to absolve responsibility is exactly what women are given in spades, so clearly it is something that can be done. Moreover, I've laid out a plausible framework for giving men this same ability. Therefore your statement is demonstrably false. Care to comment?
/r/MensRights03/08/12 07:06 PM
6

You say that being a parent is not enslavement, which is true, but that has nothing to do with what I said. Being forced to provide for a child that you did not want is enslavement. Picking cotton does not make you a slave. Doing so for no compensation, without choice, and under threat of the whip does, however. I am not against being a parent, I am against involuntary child support. Moreover, I am not for millions of single mothers raising children without help. You're forgetting that women can…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:39 PM
5

Just asserting that both parents are obligated to provide support does not make it so. Why does anyone -- child or otherwise -- have the right to exist by enslaving someone else? If there was no support available the mother should not have brought the child into the world, period, full stop. Punishing the man for the woman's irresponsibility is not just ridiculous, it's unjust.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 04:44 PM
5

The reason you're getting downvoted is because you -- like many other people -- choose to focus in on the child rather than seeing the system at play around the child. The mother who chooses to have an unwanted -- by at least the father -- child doesn't see the child as a human being, otherwise she'd consider its feelings, its need, and not bring it into the world without a stable family to support it. She sees it as an object to fulfil her biological desire for motherhood, and treats it accordi…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 07:36 AM
3

This is men's rights not "let's make controversial, irrelevant, sexist statements against women". Begone.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:34 AM
1

I don't think competing and exercising have a gender, hate to rain on your sexist parade.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:23 AM
1

No, I'm saying that unless your one vote has decided an election, you actually haven't done anything, and that accordingly, if my "words" have helped to persuade so much as one person, I've done more than you have since your votes made no difference -- if you'd stayed home the results would've been the same.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:46 AM
1

your words are doing less than my lesser of two evils "vote cast". So you've cast a vote that decided an election?
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:36 AM
19

Shut down by who?
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:00 AM
10

The concern is absolutely legitimate. It's "women's choice, men's responsibility". It needs to change: Women should be required to inform men that they're pregnant before such time as it becomes illegal for them to abort if they hope to collect child support (if they don't want child support they can keep the guy in the dark and raise the kid on their own, that's their biological prerogative). Following #1, before such time as it would be illegal to abort the child, the man needs to have the abi…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 11:42 PM
1

I hate to indulge your ignorant bullshit, but I hardly think Olympic athletes are touted as "normal"...
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:10 PM
2

No. As the state is violence, it will always attract those who want carte blanche to use and abuse violence, or those who want violence used to upset the natural, peaceful, non-violent order of things -- i.e. those who want inequality and special privileges.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 09:22 PM
0

Of course it doesn't. The state panders to select, politically profitable groups. This is why the support many MRAs have for the state is so ridiculous. You can't support equality and the state. It doesn't make sense.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 07:23 PM
1

I'm not sure that too many people would consider california backwards. I dunno have you looked at the state's finances lately? People there clearly can't even do basic math...
/r/MensRights02/08/12 06:34 PM
2

I don't like the options given for gay marriage and gender roles. They're too limiting and "Other" is too vague.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:37 PM
2

Seriously, I'm tired of looking at ugly genetic freaks who are supposedly female If you're tired of it you know you can just turn the TV off, right?
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:26 PM
2

This post is stupid.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:24 PM
1

Please point out that you're recording beforehand. Well in those certain (i.e. "backwards") places, otherwise no...
/r/MensRights02/08/12 08:34 AM
37

Yes. There really is no other answer that isn't tied up in female privilege/superiority.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 07:11 AM
4

I think the best thing that you can do is record everything. Modern phones can easily be converted into ad hoc, covert voice recorders, they're also video recorders. When something starts to get tense, just clandestinely activate your voice recorder. Even better if you have friends you can e-mail the copies to between when you hear something that can be used in your defense, and when the cops arrive.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 07:11 AM
1

I think that's stupid as well.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:48 AM
-1

Remains yes, but they aren't that way -- i.e. they don't have that choice -- because of a choice they made. I.e. being uncircumcised isn't a positive reflection on you in any way, if anything it's a positive reflection on your parents, so it's stupid to take "pride" in it.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:05 PM
1

No one is born inferior to anyone else, it's our actions and choices that determine our worth in relation to others. Okay, that's fine. Then why latch onto one specific characteristic that is decided for you shortly after birth? Why not spread the broader message? I agree with anti-circumcision activism, but I don't appreciate the way a lot of it is framed in such a way as to make circumcised people seem or feel inferior.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:56 PM
-3

they're all supposed to be about having self esteem in yourself for a state of being that you are born into. Except that's still bullshit. There's no "self esteem [sic] in yourself for a state of being that you are born into". Self-esteem is something you earn by making good choices and leading a good/worthwhile life.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:42 PM
88

Moral of the story: Never take plea bargains unless you're actually guilty.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:38 PM
0

I think the name is kind of shitty. "Foreskin pride" makes no more or less sense than "white pride". You didn't choose to be white, you didn't choose to be uncircumcised.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:51 PM
10

Courts can and do throw out prenups. DO NOT GET MARRIED!
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:32 PM
7

Of course, why wouldn't I?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:40 PM
4

what can we do about it I'd just defend myself.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:28 PM
20

I'm of the opinion that intentional, aggressive, non-consensual violence -- force used or threatened to injure or compel someone without any precipitating violence -- is always wrong and that violence of any degree is always justifiable in response. Aggressive violence -- in my opinion -- is the ultimate abdication of any expectation of reasonable conduct -- aggressive violence is the ultimate irrational act. Given that a person who has initiated violence has abdicated any expectation of reasona…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:14 PM
0

Be that as it may, "ils" is plural, "he" is not.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:11 PM
0

Using a pronoun with the intention that it be gender neutral does not "assume the default is a man". I don't understand why English speakers have such a problem with this, using the masculine when genders are mixed or unknown is common practice in languages such as French, and has absolutely nothing to do with assumptions about "the default".
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:05 PM
1

Black or white, they all carry green. ;)
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:46 PM
0

It's not my fault you're part of that hypersensitive "some".
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:46 PM
2

If it wouldn't be, why shouldn't it? Why should someone be compelled to serve or associate with anyone for any reason, no matter how ignorant their reasons are in our opinion?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:25 PM
3

Uh-huh...
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:56 AM
10

Don't fill out the form or send it back to them. Get a lawyer, ask him what to do. Don't proceed without his advice.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:32 AM
3

The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years. But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years. In sum, the majority of families who ever turn to the welfare system for support will use it for relatively short periods of time, but the majority of families …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:15 AM
1

Yeah but how does it grow if it doesn't go "back into the economy in a solid way"? Who adds to it so that people who put in get more out?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:07 AM
1

How well do the rich's companies continue to run when their workers are starving to death? They don't... ...which is why companies have a strong incentive to keep their workers happy.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:10 AM
0

Evidence for what?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:00 AM
1

Remember, no police because taxes are too low. Police aren't special. Anyone can put on a badge, pick up a gun, and provide security. Unless the rich person is spending a HUGE amount on security Who's to say many rich people don't cartelize and hire security?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 12:50 AM
2

Why is sexism against males okay, but racism against minority groups not? Both are "okay" in that they should be legally permissible when done by private actors.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 11:45 PM
1

Mutual funds return what you invest and then some. Where do you think the "and then some" comes from? Does money "sit[ting]" grow? Is money a plant?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 09:07 PM
1

that taxes on the wealthy are evil. They completely ignore the fact that you cannot exist in a vacuum. Just because you do not "exist in a vacuum" does not mean that you can use violence to get what you want on the backs of other people. That -- getting what you want on the backs of other people -- is what taxes -- in general, all of them, on the rich and the poor -- do. They take from those who have earned to give to those who have not earned. The only reason taxes on the rich are such a focal …
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:35 PM
1

If trucks stop bringing food to grocery stores, everybody is fucked in a short time. Except the people who can pay for personal trucks, of course. Trade -- capitalism, free markets, et cetera -- takes the privileges of being rich from yesterday, and makes them the expectation of everyone today.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:10 PM
2

You're a fool if you think we can defeat the dominant global narrative ,that defends its power with every underhand means at its disposal, with pure logic and Queensbury rules And you're a fool to think you can defeat feminism et al. by becoming just as evil and misguided as they are.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:35 PM
0

The wealthy actually have something to lose if society goes pear shaped. As opposed to the proletariat, who will somehow not die, have their possessions pillaged/destroyed, et cetera?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:34 PM
-4

What's your point?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:17 PM
0

Whereas an unstable society does what for/to the proletariat?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:17 PM
-4

Prove it.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:17 PM
-6

Because it doesn't affect him as much. He's paying more in raw dollar amounts, but the actual burden of paying that money is lower than it would be for someone who made less. How is this relevant?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:07 PM
0

How so? People with more money are the people who could potentially become warlords, lords, kings, dictators, emperors, et cetera given an unstable society.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:07 PM
3

Why did these things make traditional gender roles less important? Why did they benefit women more than men? It's not so much that they "benefit[ed] women more than men" it's rather than -- as a result of traditional gender roles -- men were more politically liberated at the time. These things made traditional gender roles less important because of increased productivity. As men had to work less and less they could stay home more and more, and as the economy become more and more productive more …
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:05 PM
1

I don't want an "in-depth discussion" with ill-reasoned, violent oppressors whose policies and ideas have a long track record of genocide and suffering. Thanks for the offer though...
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:55 PM
2

I think you mean you're a socon MRA who wants to ignore the historical feminist focus on matters such as prostitution because you actually agree with them on those issues. Being that I'm an individualist anarchist who thinks that prostitution should be legal... ...no. But, that's what assuming gets you. And so why didn't women pursue these things at any other time in history? The Industrial Revolution brought with it increased wealth, increased access to education, increased leisure time, et cet…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:40 PM
1

How exaclty is it not fair that everyone is the same? Everyone isn't the same. To say that "everyone is the same" is to deny reality. Try to live without it. Try buying a computer without giving money to them. Try buying a car without it. Obviously the act of "buying" involves you trading. You can't buy a computer without giving money to someone because giving money -- or other resources -- is necessary for the act to be "buying". But there's nothing to say that you couldn't gather the resources…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:39 PM
1

We're not talking about mras, we're talking about feminists. And? What's your point? I was merely pointing out that -- given the existence of unattractive MRAs -- people could actually make the same statements about the men's rights movement. Saying that feminists are oppressive and anti-man just because they're ugly is a collectivist, illegitimate cop out. If feminist was really born out of such frustrations then women who don't experience such frustrations wouldn't be feminists because they'd …
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:27 PM
1

Sure, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? If they want to incentivize the attendance of women, and disincentivize the attendance of men -- i.e. artificially adjust the quantities of each that they'd otherwise have in attendance -- why shouldn't they be able to? No one is compelling anyone to go to the party or pay the money. Why is this a problem?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:24 PM
-3

Proof that these services wouldnt exist without government? Look into history. No society without a strong government (or anarchist communes, but again, different story) ever had good roads. This is anecdotal evidence. Equivalent to saying "well I've never seen raw uranium, so it can't exist". Show me a point in history where there was a confluence of incentives to build infrastructure, the ability to do so (i.e. the territory wasn't war ravaged), and a lack of government, and because of the lac…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:23 PM
5

It doesn't though. Sure there are unattractive feminists, but there are also probably unattractive MRAs. There are also attractive feminists, and attractive MRAs.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:19 PM
8

I'm personally of the opinion that risks et cetera make for more prudent use of educational services. If you just have a personal interest in something, you don't necessarily need to pursue higher education in that thing (you can self educate, etc.), and if you feel that you want to, you don't have to do so straight out of high school. Too many people are going to university. Too many people are taking bogus classes that won't lead to jobs or productivity in general in university. Part of the ca…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:18 PM
1

I'd think they are least capable of paying back those services at that time. If they can pay back what they use, I'm sure a bank will give them a loan.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:09 PM
11

At least she was charged/punished...
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:08 PM
4

I didn't even have to go past the first paragraph to realize this was utter trash. It's not "misogynistic" per se, it's "ugly shaming", which is just as bad. Disliking, shaming, et cetera people for attributes that they didn't choose -- gender, ugliness, race, et cetera -- is indefensible and ridiculous.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:07 PM
5

Who's running/hosting the party? If it's an individual or a private organization then they should by all means be able to charge whoever whatever they want for whatever reasons they want. If they want to incentivize women to turn up -- because they want a lot of women -- they can go right ahead.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:07 PM
-1

Welfare services and any sort of assistance program costs money. Obviously, but this doesn't prove or demonstrate it any way that "[w]elfare services" should or must exist. And if the rich lose their wealth, those services will, supposedly, still exist to help them in their time of need. Sure, that's what insurance is -- a way to recover from a low-risk, high-cost event. But you can buy insurance. Moreover, for most of the people who take welfare it's not functioning in any way like insurance. I…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:57 PM
-2

Both proft strongly from government programs. Prove it. You're saying that "[b]oth proft [sic] from government programs", but what's your baseline? Are you comparing them both being better off because of "government programs" under the assumption that the functions the "government programs" fill would be absent if the government stopped doing them? What proof do you have that they're better off with the government programs? What proof do you have that something better wouldn't replace those prog…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:23 PM
0

The OP is rife with collectivism.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:13 PM
-5

the government is allowed to tell you to pay income tax regardless whether you are single or married. The opposite is true in the case of children as he mentions. The government could very well tell you to pay "child support" if you didn't have children, were still married, et cetera. In saying "the government is allowed to tell you" you revealed the ridiculousness of arguing what the state ought to or ought not to do, or what does or does not make sense. The government can't take income tax fro…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:12 PM
-2

Both of those ways wouldnt be fair. Say, a janitor would be unable to pay these taxes, while a billionaire wouldnt even notice them. "[F]air" is not a function of one's ability to pay, "fair" is paying for what you use. Assuming the billionaire and janitor from your example both use the same government services, why should the billionaire be expected to pay more for the same services?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:10 PM
0

That's irrelevant. Even if the majority of a certain group exhibits a behaviour -- meaning that it's a candidate for generalization -- doesn't mean that the behaviour may be expected or that feelings which are a consequence of the behaviour may be validly harboured against the whole of that group. Which is what I was talking about -- you would have understood this if you could comprehend what you read. Even if the majority of women exhibit hypergamy, this doesn't mean that all women do. If the m…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 04:43 PM
0

Okay and, what's your point? Do you disagree with this assertion? If one man rapes, does that mean all men are rapists? I.e. do the actions of any number of individuals less than 100% (in this case one) of a group (in this case men) indicate the character or actions of the entire group (in this case rape)?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 04:15 PM
-6

It's called income tax because it's a tax on your income, not necessarily because it's tied to your income.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 04:12 PM
0

at least it's consistent through your entire life So you'll never go into a higher tax bracket and pay more? It's not like you have to pay more just because you changed your marital status. No, you just have to pay more because you earn more, which makes just as little sense. The cost of running the government doesn't go up when I make more money.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 04:00 PM
2

Then asking about "violence" is a non sequitur.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:45 PM
9

That's like asking why income tax is tied to your income rather than tied to paying your "fair share" (where "fair share" is the expenses of the government divided by the number of citizens, or, more fairly, is the expense incurred by the quantity of government services you personally use). Government doesn't make sense, and doesn't have to. It just points a gun at people and says "this is how it is". If you want to do something that makes sense, advocate to get rid of the whole thing. Governmen…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:44 PM
1

You're asking two different questions, which are both loaded: "Why is violence against women a valid desire[?]" This is a question about a desire -- not about violence itself. Moreover it is "loaded" because it supposes that it's valid to desire to use violence against women, and given this supposed truism asks for the reasoning. "[Why is] violence against men not valid?" This is a question about violence itself, rather than the desire, which means that the former question and this question are …
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:42 PM
5

Not really...
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:31 PM
4

...what?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:30 PM
2

What other way is there to interpret: Because it doesn't apply to all, you can't make the statement? Except that's not what I said... You're really bad at this.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 01:06 PM
2

That's not what I said. Your reading comprehension abilities are pretty abysmal...
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:38 AM
3

If it doesn't then the statement you quoted is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:33 AM
1

A generalization doesn't claim to be a rule which may properly be applied to every individual member of a group.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:30 AM
1

I never said that generalizations weren't valid, I pointed out that harbouring feelings towards a group because of the actions of some subset of that group is ridiculous. Perhaps you should re-read my post...
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:19 AM
1

Reading the link doesn't make it any better. The link implies there's anger "about women" to get past. The anger shouldn't be "about women" it should be "about some women" or "about some women and men" (since there are men who enable the feminist agenda). Grouping people and painting them with broad strokes needs to end. It's not constructive, it's not accurate, and it's not conducive to open, amicable, reasonable dialogue.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:16 AM
0

I don't "hate women" because the actions of any number of individuals less than 100% of a group is not indicative of the character or actions of the entire group -- collectivization based on any number of samples other than 100% is false. Sure, we can make generalizations. If many of A exhibit behaviour B but groups C and D do not we may say "A exhibits B", but that does not mean that we may accurately expect every A to exhibit B. Similarly, just because a lot of women exhibit behaviours, though…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 05:09 AM
3

I honestly think that men's rights should be more towards the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist end of the political spectrum, as all groups that want equal treatment for themselves in the face of the state experience and are victimized by state violence (which libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism seek to end). But there are a lot of apologists. Because at the same time that the state bludgeons your fellow men with child support, false rape accusations, forcing you to pay for subsidies etc. for wo…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 02:28 PM
9

No one should be absolved of crimes just because it may discourage other people from bringing crimes to light. That's not just a lack of justice, that's a travesty of justice.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 02:25 PM
3

I can't get past how terrible the grammar is in this post...
/r/MensRights27/07/12 08:49 AM
3

I'm really tired -- cue SRS brigade etc. -- of people saying things like: He’s a man who shores up his own manliness by hitting people who are not only smaller and weaker than him, but are also easy to get the drop on because they foolishly believe that he loves them. He’s basically someone afraid not only to pick on someone his own size, but he can’t even pick on people smaller without manipulating them heavily to let down their guard. I'm a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist. I don't question the …
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:33 PM
1

Let's try and predict the spin on this one: Proof polygamy is bad. ????
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:15 PM
1

Uhh...
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:06 PM
3

Yeah this is what happens when you involve government in something. But you guys seem to really dig the state, so, I can't feel sorry for you...
/r/MensRights24/07/12 09:14 PM
3

How can we, specifically as women Don't falsely accuse people of rape! /s In seriousness I think that evangelism -- effective evangelism -- is the best way to go about things at this point in time. We -- unlike first wave feminists -- have the advantage that "sexism" is already reviled in modern culture, it's just that it's rarely applied to so-called "reverse sexism". So rather than convincing people that judging people or treating people a certain way based on immutable characteristics (race, …
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:01 PM
0

Well sure, assuming that's what happened. But you don't know, neither do I, so...
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:19 PM
0

Obviously circumcision in general should not be banned. If grown men want to not have a foreskin, why should anyone stop them? It's like if an adult wants to smoke marijuana or kill themselves or do anything else that only affects them and no one else. Routine neo-natal circumcision is what should be banned.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 08:59 AM
0

Pick Up Artist
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:19 AM
-7

Genghis Khan was arguably a very different kind of mass murderer -- he was a conqueror, not some guy who shot up a movie theater for no ostensible reason. There is no difference between the two.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:19 AM
1

This is utterly incorrect. Just because a circumcised person knows that circumcision is wrong doesn't mean that he spends every waking moment thinking and feeling bad about it. You're all making poor excuses for terrorizing sensitive circumcised MRAs by foisting trigger material on them.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:56 AM
2

Is this a cognitive issue with you? Did your mother drop you on the head? Insulting me is not convincing, nor is it an argument, nor is it relevant. Do you enjoy being wrong? You certainly excel at it.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:46 PM
2

How does that prove anything?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:44 PM
1

To make killing more time efficient. Exactly. If someone (or some people) break into my house I want to be plenty efficient at killing them. So unless you want to defend yourself against the red chinese What's the magical threshold of defending myself? Do I have a right to defend myself against one or two attackers, but not five, or six, or "the red chinese"?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:38 PM
2

the acquiring of firearms be more difficult No, it really doesn't. If people could carry their legally owned firearms, loaded and either open or concealed wherever they went, and could acquire those firearms easily, they'd be a lot more likely to do that. Trying to prevent mentally deranged people from being mentally deranged is simply not going to happen. Whether they get the gun from K-Mart or they steal it or they buy it on the black market or they don't use a gun at all, they're going to go …
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:37 PM
2

my way is simply better Citation needed.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:34 PM
4

The US has the highest % of gun crime in the first world. So? It doesn't matter what the tool is, what matters is that the aim is accomplished. So let's say you could magically obliterate gun crime, and instead if was replace with knife crime. What now? You wouldnt need guns to defend yourself if you had better gun control laws So robberies, murders, rapes, et cetera would just magically stop if only people didn't have guns? are you seriously telling me you need an assault rifle to defend yourse…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:28 PM
3

And yet despite the fact that C-4 et al. are illegal people who are determined enough still manage to blow things up. Should we also ban diesel fuel and fertilizer? The argument is "legit". There's an example: Illegal guns being used in gang wars in Canada (guns that can't even be bought legally by law-abiding citizens!) and drugs. Drugs are illegal throughout the U.S., including marijuana! And yet hundreds of thousands of adults, teenagers, etc. help themselves to marijuana every day. Prohibiti…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:21 PM
2

And yet as I pointed out there are also countries that have plenty of guns that have crime as low or lower than the countries you cited. You're really making this altogether too easy for me.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:16 PM
2

I'm for restricting legal gun purchases or banning them completely. Then you're naive, stupid, or both. Banning something doesn't get rid of it. How has that worked out with drugs? You're exhibiting reality-denying behaviour, snap out of it.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:11 PM
2

It's like putting a net under a bridge to stop suicides. You wouldn't think it would work since they'd just do it some other way, but suicide rates go down. You're saying that under the assumption that people commit suicide and in all instances hope to die. Many suicides are a cry for help -- a way to get needed attention.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:10 PM
3

No, I say they should fight back as a mob, giving them much more power than when single people try to fight back, enabling strict gun control to make it harder for criminals to obtain them. So you're still saying a spree killer should be able to just get away with killing a bunch of people. Spree killers aren't concerned with getting away with it. They walk in, shoot a bunch of people, they're not planning to get away. The only hope innocents have is that someone pulls a gun and shoots the basta…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:05 PM
2

My point is that if people want guns and don't care about the law (people willing to kill others do not care about the law) they will get guns. So you're talking about not disarming criminals, but disarming innocent people trying to defend themselves.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:46 PM
2

And? I think you're missing the point. Killers -- spree or otherwise -- are willing to kill people. This is not just a legal affront, it's a moral and human affront as well. They're willing to violate one of the most sacred moral tenets of human civilization. You think that, once they've committed to such a misguided course of action, they're going to stop because some piece of paper written and voted on by some people says that they can't have a gun?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:45 PM
2

Gangs? We're talking about criminals now right? Spree killers aren't criminals?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:37 PM
3

I'd say you'd be put at a bit of a disadvantage when someone effectively sneaks in your bedroom and blows your brains out. The same disadvantage you'd be at if they snuck into your bedroom with a knife, what's your point? With effective gun control, gun-related deaths with intruders and in other settings such as movie theatres and school, gun related deaths can and will be non-existent. Proof? In Canada -- which you hold up as having gun control etc. -- gangs shoot each other -- with weapons it'…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:30 PM
2

Where were the people using their guns defensively?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:23 PM
5

So people should just sacrifice themselves like lambs rather than fighting back? You make guns illegal, people who are willing to break the law (i.e. kill peopre) are still going to have guns. The only difference is whether good, law-abiding people will have guns are not. If you're anti-gun, you're anti-victim and pro-criminal. Period, full stop.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:23 PM
238

At least the response to that was great.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:19 PM
1

the last mass murder in Japan that involved firearms So mass murders that don't involve firearms just don't matter? People still die...what's the difference?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:16 PM
6

And then he would've gotten them illegally. He was willing to shoot and kill people. Why would making guns illegal stop him from getting them?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:12 PM
5

Switzerland has a lower homicide rate than Canada, but gun ownership there is substantially more prevalent. Liechtenstein allows citizens to open carry firearms, and yet had no murders in 2002 (for example). So...
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:12 PM
6

I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You think someone's going to go ahead and shoot and kill people, but will stop because some law said they can't get a gun? Hahaha...
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:01 PM
18

If you have a side arm, you should probably be taking it with you everywhere. Killers don't care where you are.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 05:17 PM
-12

If you really want to protect your loved ones, you should be carrying a gun yourself.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 04:58 PM
2

And the ones that already realize the harm, they should just be made to feel like dirt alongside all the others.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 04:37 PM
1

I never said not to educate, I just said that it shouldn't be foisted on an already-educated and possibly emotionally vulnerable populace.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 03:46 PM
0

Hey that's a good argument. ...lol
/r/MensRights22/07/12 02:21 PM
-2

Oh man, more emotional dribblings from you? Rofl you're claiming to be this great MRA and yet falling into the trap of hegemonic masculinity I never said that truthful depictions or discussions of MGM were bad, I merely said that it would be courteous to disclaim them. Stop arguing against what you think I said, read what I actually said, understand it, and argue against that. I.e. stop being a moron.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:47 AM
-4

Pray tell how it was obvious. There are many reasons -- other than vindictiveness -- to downvote someone. Especially when their post adds nothing to the conversation except to attempt to condescend.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:29 AM
-2

I find it very amusing that you're claiming to be this great MRA and yet falling into the trap of hegemonic masculinity by telling me to "[g]row some skin" in response to taking offense at something. Just because something is true doesn't mean that it's not offensive. Stop acting as though the two are mutually exclusive. Just because something is true doesn't mean that it can't be invalidating and emasculating. Would telling someone who has a micro penis that they'll probably never please a woma…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:27 AM
-3

It's not about taking anything the wrong way, it's like exposing a rape victim to a barrage of explicit information about rape and not expecting them to feel offended et cetera. It's just insensitive. The article said NOTHING AT ALL about being 'less-than-men' "[...] intact men [...] enjoy sex as nature intended [circumcised men do not]" Emasculating and invalidating. "This [...] will lead to a greater likelihood of erectile dysfunction later in life." Emasculating and invalidating. "If you [are…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:14 AM
-4

Grow some skin. Not only was I not talking about myself, but: Foreskin restoration only creates the appearance of a natural foreskin; certain parts of the natural foreskin cannot be reformed. In particular, the ridged band, a nerve-bearing tissue structure extending around the penis just inside the tip of the foreskin, which helps to contract the tip of the foreskin so that it remains positioned over the glans, cannot be recreated. Restored foreskins can appear much looser at the tip and some me…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:00 AM
-10

And I didn't downvote you; which is what you assumed and you therefore downvoted me. Oh? Tell me more about how you can read minds, please.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:45 AM
-5

It's not about agreement or disagreement, it's about the insensitivity of posting such a lambasting of circumcised men without any kind of warning. People come here to support and be supported in the cause of men. They don't come here to have it beaten into them that they're lesser men because of a decision they had no say in. That's not just insensitive, it's unfair.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:44 AM
-11

While her comments were ignorant, they definitely weren't a burning and insensitive indictment of the manliness and potency of men who happen to be genital mutilation victims.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:34 AM
-10

Nice argument. ...wait...
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:32 AM
-19

[...] and as intact men they and their partners are able to enjoy sex as nature intended. If you circumcise your son, he will lose over 50% of the mobile skin on his penis, making the organ smaller. His glans will become dry and keratinized. Over 20,000 fine-touch nerve receptors will be permanently removed; literally the most sensitive part of his penis will be gone forever. This loss in sensitivity will lead to a greater likelihood of erectile dysfunction later in life. Because circumcised men…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:29 AM
-16

State socialism is entitlement. Period, full stop.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:05 AM
-22

Be careful, there are socialists on this sub-reddit...
/r/MensRights22/07/12 04:50 AM
9

Perhaps you're ignoring the other, valid criticisms of MRA you've seen Which? I haven't seen any.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 11:18 AM
15

How? A counter-argument to men's rights issues is that they are invalid because women are incapable of malice/violence/sadism/anti-social personality disorder/et cetera. This story illustrates -- once more -- that this is false. All of the above are issues with people not with men.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 10:51 AM
5

Keyword being "many". Those are the ones I don't tolerate.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 10:27 AM
2

Either this guy isn't the same person as before, or he's some kind of long-lived throwaway...
/r/MensRights20/07/12 07:45 AM
2

I can't link more than one post in a submission -- that's just the most recent example. I've seen at least 4 in the past week or so, which is more than I remember seeing before that.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 07:34 AM
2

pick up on There's this thing called "communication", where you just say things and people don't have to "pick up on" them... ...people should give it a whirl...
/r/MensRights20/07/12 01:36 AM
16

If you don't have enough trust in your monogamous relationship partner (wife, girlfriend, et cetera) to let her go away with friends for a few days without you tripping balls, you need to seriously re-evaluate why you're in a relationship at all with someone you can't/don't trust. The same is equally applicable to the wife's response to the husband going to the Caribbean.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 12:17 AM
2

This is why we need to remove government and substitute private contracts that aren't limited in their expression and accommodation of private relationships.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 05:12 PM
1

I'll have to try harder!
/r/MensRights18/07/12 04:19 PM
1

Oh, maybe? I've never really noticed anything removed from this sub-reddit though. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough (or clicking fast enough).
/r/MensRights18/07/12 04:15 PM
1

Why should something be removed just because it's offensive?
/r/MensRights18/07/12 04:11 PM
2

Is it offensive to those who have been circ'ed because it's insensitive? Yes.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 04:05 PM
2

Yes. While the comments et cetera are something we can appreciate, the meme itself is pretty offensive.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 03:48 PM
2

Yeah this will be real popular...
/r/MensRights18/07/12 03:38 PM
4

And? As long as it's not a 100% lower risk it's not a compelling reason to do it. And even if it was 100% lower risk, men can still have themselves circumcised of their own volition. Shoo.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 09:24 PM
2

I don't think someone identifying as a libertarian has to follow the philosophy to such an extreme. They do. If you believe that "positive obligations exist" then you simply are not a libertarian.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:03 PM
2

No. It is not the state doing the mutilation. When we change the law, the state will be protecting children from irrational traditionalist bullshit. You're pretty intent on apologizing for your oppressors, aren't you? Absolving the state from responsibility for circumcision, when the state explicitly makes it legal, and explicitly protects its practitioners from the consequences (imprisonment, paying damages, et cetera) is absolving your oppressor from responsibility for your oppression. I.e. it…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 07:58 PM
9

What a double standard That's government for you.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 12:42 PM
0

You guys still think the state is a good idea? The state is not "rights" or "equality" affirming. It only exists by denying "rights" and destroying "equality".
/r/MensRights15/07/12 12:41 PM
5

When did I say that? Everyone's self determination is equal, which is why no one person -- or group of people -- ought to impose a religion (i.e. "religious freedom"). When "religious freedom" is seen through this lens, it becomes apparently that the state telling you that you must worship a certain god, God, or gods, or follow a certain faith is wrong -- as it is imposing someone's subjective beliefs on you -- but it's equally apparent that neo-natal circumcision -- i.e. parents forcing their r…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 12:31 PM
36

Well "circumcision" isn't, "neo-natal circumcision" is. It's important to delineate between voluntary and involuntary.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 11:32 AM
97

There is not valuation of "self determination above religious freedom". The two are not rivalrous. Self determination is religious freedom, and religious freedom is self determination. The issue is that people -- apologists -- apply "religious freedom" to the concept of violating someone else's rights because your religion tells you to. That's not "religious freedom" -- "freedom" does not encompass the idea of doing as you wish to other people.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 10:33 AM
7

The idea that something which is morally wrong ought to be legal just because people might do it in a more ghastly manner is utterly ridiculous, and is a transparent appeal to emotion (i.e. a fallacy). If immoral behaviours ought to be legal, just because they may be performed in a more ghastly manner illegally, then why not legalize all behaviour? After all, I'm sure that if people were murdered not with blunt objects but by lethal injection by "professionals" it'd be more humane for those invo…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 10:19 AM
3

I hope she never becomes a mother She reviles the male sexual organ enough that she wants to render it non-functional, but she's going to become a mother? We need to watch for this, it'll be a great moment to have "hypocrite" in your vocabulary.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 05:06 AM
0

You can think whatever you want -- that's your prerogative.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 05:01 AM
0

I have given you the statistics and I'm saying that to say 'women do it too' is irrelevant as the percentage is way too low. So what percentage is "too low" and what is "enough"? At what point would the percentage for women transition from "too low" -- as it is not -- to "enough" -- as it is now for men. Also: A logical justification for this point. It's like saying that cats would risk their lives for their owner because ONE or TWO did, is irrelevant and ridiculous because the striking majority…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:46 AM
0

I wonder if you would hold the same stance if this was a white supremacist screaming on the corner about how all "niggers" should be castrated I would.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:42 AM
0

It's not about "different points of view", it's that you're wrong and I'm not. "Sexism" is a collectivist point-of-view -- you see people in groups and the membership of those groups is contingent upon their gender. "Reverse sexism" is the same. Statistics don't matter. Until the statistics show that 100% of the members of a group exhibit a behaviour, it's still sexist to assume that any one member of that group exhibits the behaviour, or to believe that they have a greater probability of exhibi…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:46 AM
2

Of course you will get "so much hate", you're an idiot. It doesn't matter how often something happens, the only thing that matters is that it happens, period. The statement "women don't rape" is false just as the statement "all men rape" is false. Since not all men rape and since all women don't not rape, assuming that a man accused of rape is, in fact, guilty of rape is wrong, just as assuming a women accused of rape is not guilty is wrong. Additionally, you include an examination of men raped …
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:13 AM
6

It would've been a lot better if you'd posted this in such a way that it was framed as a discussion/critique of/drawing attention to the content, rather than trying to censor the person in question. I mean why should you -- or I, or anyone else -- be able to censor this person because they disagree with us, but no one should be able to censor us because we disagree with feminists? Beware the slippery slope...
/r/MensRights15/07/12 01:53 AM
17

Thank-you. I'm glad someone other than me thinks this way.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 01:51 AM
7

"[...] find upvoted comments saying women should be legally disenfranchised, women are worthless, women are compulsive liars, women aren't capable of rational thought, women should be property, etc. [...]" I'm kind of interested to see these comments... ...I've somehow managed to never happen across them.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 09:40 AM
1

Maybe you should click on the "Why?"...
/r/MensRights12/07/12 09:27 AM
0

Ah okay apparently "statutory rape" is rape in the 3rd degree, so that answers my question, thanks!
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:00 AM
5

Do children not get input on custody where you live? They do where I live. Personally -- some harsh truths here/"trigger warning" -- I wouldn't do anything to "get back at [that] evil bitch". There's nothing you really can do. Nothing that will bring you satisfaction. Living with a woman as husband and wife, not hedging your bets by keeping your property in your name and a very strong legal line between the two of you (as strong as possible) is a bet. Well the race is over, and your Dad bet on t…
/r/MensRights11/07/12 10:27 PM
-5

In that case, was she really "[e]ndangering the [w]elfare of [the] [c]hild"?
/r/MensRights11/07/12 06:35 PM
-4

How descriptive.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:45 PM
-7

I think you're missing the point.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:31 PM
-2

Are we talking about actual rape or so-called "statutory rape" -- the article is not specific?
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:23 PM
2

"[...] to promote gender equality and oppose violence against women." The fact that someone could write this in a draft and take themselves seriously -- let alone publish it -- is a reflection of how sad our society's understanding of "equality" has become.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:08 PM
0

Governments cannot redefine reality by fiat. The dictionary definition is what the word means in English. Calling something that isn't rape -- i.e. consenting sex with someone who's drunk, or who is under the age of consent -- "rape" is always inaccurate.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:03 AM
7

Men have "reproductive rights"? When did this happen and why wasn't I informed?
/r/MensRights10/07/12 06:35 PM
19

Questioning the victim and even blaming some of the victims is not the same as "blam[ing] all the victims". As with all attempts at fantastical explanation, this one has massive flaws. I'll break this down: What is "rape"? This is a problem with any modern discussion of rape. What exactly is it? Feminists have expanded the term to include near any kind of sexual contact unless the woman never has any misgivings about it ever. So essentially it's rape if at some point from before the man penetrat…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 05:18 PM
1

Yes. Even someone with no skills at all can eke out an existence working at McDonald's or Wal-Mart -- no one has to "degrade" themselves, they choose to. There's no "misandry" involved, you're just trying to foist your own subjective valuations on others.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 12:20 AM
1

No, because there are plenty of jobs that require little-to-no specialized skills. Just because someone didn't gain any skills, doesn't mean that they deserve a good job, nor does it mean that they deserve money independent of being "degraded" (note: Scare quotes). Besides which, making a valuation isn't "degrading", it means that you actually want what you're getting in exchange more than you don't want to do what you're being paid to do. Is mopping floors "degrading"? I mean no one (or next to…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 08:04 PM
1

I'm quite sure they could have all gotten a job at McDonald's. You're imposing your arbitrary ideas of what "misandry" is on the choices of other men. It's not your life, they can do whatever they want with it, that's their right (you know, those things the name of this movement invokes?).
/r/MensRights08/07/12 07:42 PM
5

It doesn't matter where I am. It isn't "degrading" to agree to do something for money.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 08:37 AM
1

It doesn't matter whether it's "empowering" or "degrading", what matters is that the people who are doing it do it voluntarily.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 07:46 AM
5

It's a movie? The actors who play in it were paid and agreed to do it. I don't see how this is offensive.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 05:56 AM
3

And all this time I was enamoured with "innocent until proven guilty" and such. When in reality we just need to give women the power to dish out summary justice.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 09:40 PM
6

What kind of thinking? That people deserve to get paid different amounts for different jobs? I mean even if you don't want to microanalyze what's involved in acting in porn as a male vs. a female, perhaps there's more of a demand for a more specific type of female porn actress, and a much smaller supply. Saying that men and women should get equal pay for "equal work" regardless of market conditions, the desirability of each gender in the role, et cetera is just ridiculous hyper-egalitarian nonse…
/r/MensRights05/07/12 09:36 PM
2

This is a repost.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 11:45 PM
4

Ah, women upset about freedom again.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 10:44 PM
1

I commented at length about a similar article yesterday, with a few things to add with respect to this article: All arguments for circumcision (male or female) are fundamentally based on collectivism, which is not only evil, but is anti-human. People are not born with an innate need or desire to serve others or to live their lives for the benefit of others, they are born with only their own interests and happiness in mind. As a consequence of this natural state of man every human being owns them…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 05:36 PM
3

Foreskin restoration doesn't really qualify as "regr[o]w[ing] [your] foreskin".
/r/MensRights04/07/12 02:33 AM
2

I know, I've done extensive research myself. I was ceding the point to reveal intellectual dishonesty.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 11:48 PM
3

I did... ...unfortunately they made me condense my comment (also posted here) to 250 words. :( Don't know if it's gotten out of the moderation queue either...hasn't showed up on my Facebook...
/r/MensRights03/07/12 11:06 PM
5

I'm 23 and my doctor didn't seem to have any problems with it. If your doctor won't do it, find another doctor. Repeat.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 10:48 PM
7

You could not have sex? Have a vasectomy?
/r/MensRights03/07/12 10:41 PM
42

This person is one of the dangerous kind of people who don't have proper argumentative skills, but who have just enough argumentative skills to pass themselves off as if they do to the population-at-large. You'll notice that her arguments and conclusions are dependent on omissions or misdirections, or on hoping that her audience will be too overjoyed about her conclusions to question the odious implications of her arguments. For example: [...] means that [security of the person] should be balanc…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:55 PM
1

Anti-social behaviour requires a pervasive disregard for the rights of others. Being that I'm here arguing for the rights of myself and others, I hardly think that I qualify.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 09:31 AM
4

Of course pornography is morally defendable -- it's made by uncoerced people for an uncoerced audience.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 09:30 AM
4

No that would take up far too much time.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 10:14 PM
8

Where'd these feminist apologists come from? Just because something "leads to or facilitates harm" doesn't mean it's bad. Guns, religion, et cetera would all fall under that and yet they are not bad.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 10:13 PM
5

Then why'd you repeat my point as though you'd missed it and were trying to make it to me. @_@
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:51 PM
8

objectifying them in a harmful way. Unless you're exhibiting anti-social behaviour, there is no "objectifying [someone] in a harmful way".
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:41 PM
4

No, but treating being black as someone's sole distinguishing characteristic is seriously racist. No it's not. You're assuming that I know other things -- and care to know other things about them. I probably don't. I see them, and the only immediately recognizable things about them are probably their skin colour/ethnicity and gender. So that's how they're identified. It isn't a malicious attempt to identify them or group them, it's just all the information I have, and the complete extent to whic…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:40 PM
12

You can treat some people as "sexual objects" and other people as not-"sexual objects" -- it's not as cut-and-dry as you're making it out to be. Besides, 99% of the people I come across in a day I really don't care enough about to "treat [...] as full thinking and feeling human beings". As far as I'm concerned they are (and for all it matters they may as well be) objects. Their human-ness is utterly irrelevant to me, and mine to them. The normalization of so-called sexual "objectification" isn't…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:32 PM
9

But why is the woman being appreciated? Not because of who she is as a human being, but because she is pleasing to the eye. And? What's your point? Contrary to the beliefs of some, it isn't incredibly flattering when people wank over you. So?
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:19 PM
12

And there's nothing really wrong with that either provided it's not coercive. Besides which, the images that are used in that article are only worth making because of appreciative of the female form. I picture of just a woman's lower body would not be worthwhile if the female form was not something appreciated.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:14 PM
-4

People have sexual attraction to the physical bodies of other people. Women objectify men just as often as men objectify women. It's not a gender specific trait, it's a human trait. Having fun arguing against that straw man? men and women have sexual feelings for each other
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:02 PM
32

The fact that feminists have such issue with "objectification" (i.e. appreciation of the female form) is kind of ridiculous. I mean what are they going to do? It's not just a natural thing (men and women have sexual feelings for each other (assuming they're heterosexual, of course), how scandalous!) but is also something you can't really "solve". I mean what are you going to do? Ban male sexuality?
/r/MensRights30/06/12 07:18 PM
2

We'll turn into "the creatures they claim us to be" when we're no better than them, and that won't happen until and unless we become actively anti-equality. Following through with dakru's example (last paragraph): MRA's don't absolve male abusers of culpability -- at least none I've seen -- but at the same time we don't absolve female abusers either. Feminists take issue with us because we don't refuse to see female abusers -- i.e. we don't give them carte blanche simply for being women, i.e. be…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 04:39 PM
4

And if they were pro-equality I'd support them, but they're not, so I don't. I don't even support anti-equality MRAs, why would I support a group that doesn't care about my interests or have them in mind, and which is anti-equality and therefore anti-me?
/r/MensRights30/06/12 03:40 PM
8

It's pro-woman and anti-man -- it's explicitly anti-equality.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 03:25 PM
9

Attack women? No. Feminism? Hell yes.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 03:19 PM
2

Libertarian socialism does not violate the rights of the individual and is not a collectivist attitude.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:02 AM
13

"[A]n anti-book culture among fathers." Sounds like sexism...
/r/MensRights29/06/12 07:00 PM
44

It's because feminism isn't just pro-woman or pro-equality it's pro-woman and anti-man and therefore anti-equality. I don't understand how this is even a question that someone can ask. Feminist literature/sources/etc. drip of hatred of men. It's not just begrudging men for oppression (which is long over) it's begrudging men period, full stop. The reasons behind this are two fold, and both come from the fact that feminism (specifically) and society-at-large (generally) tell women (and other group…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 05:14 PM
0

Being that my top 4 karma subreddits are Libertarian, ronpaul, Anarcho_Capitalism, and MensRights -- in that order -- I'd definitely believe it...
/r/MensRights28/06/12 05:40 PM
2

You guys still support government? Bahahahahaha...
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:52 PM
-11

I like universal healthcare How is Stockholm Syndrome working out for you?
/r/MensRights28/06/12 10:57 AM
1

It should not.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 11:03 AM
7

If the employer wants to give time off -- for any reason -- that's their business. If they don't that too is their business. That's my take on it.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 10:58 AM
-3

all Canadians are slaves Of course. When you must devote time and energy to paying for something whether you want it or not you are enslaved. What's the difference between a farmhand today and an African-American in the antebellum South? One chooses, the other does not. equally distributed So everyone gets out the same amount? This prevents people from breaking limbs and footing massive hospital bills while they can't work. So does insurance. Socialized health care has been demonstrably good for…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 10:19 PM
-7

Why should you have to pay for roads, hospitals, educations and libraries? I shouldn't have to, I should pay for them if I want them. The question is: Why should you -- or anyone else -- be able to enslave anyone for any reason? If you produce (i.e. work) while other people dispose your product (e.g. income tax), then you are a slave.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 10:02 PM
-6

That does nothing to answer the question.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 09:54 PM
3

There are "libertarians" who support all sorts of random crap, so I imagine there are "libertarians" who support the current state of family courts (for example).
/r/MensRights25/06/12 09:12 PM
2

Libertarian MRAs represent?
/r/MensRights25/06/12 08:58 PM
-11

Why should anyone be entitled to receive a benefit at someone else's expense? Why should anyone become a slave -- i.e. be forced to work for no pay for the benefit of someone else -- merely because someone else wants -- not even "needs" -- something?
/r/MensRights25/06/12 08:58 PM
9

You have to come to terms with the fact that 99% of the time people say "hate" they mean "an opinion that's at odds with mine".
/r/MensRights25/06/12 05:32 PM
1

Yes, expat to other countries where women control votes. You're an intelligent one, aren't you?
/r/MensRights24/06/12 07:17 PM
1

Well then. There's nothing wrong with feminism and there are no men's rights issues. All possible issues are settled by the overwhelming violence of the state pressing down on men. Your arguments are overruled by the superior violence you face.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 07:15 PM
1

Statutory rape laws are settling disputes with violence. You believe that people under a certain age shouldn't have sexual intercourse (either at all or with people over a certain age), and so you impose your view with violence -- by incarcerating those who go against your command/opinion. You don't take into consideration the volition and self-determination of the involved parties. So not only is it wrong (morally), it's bankrupt logically, and -- by virtue of its volition-/self-determination-d…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 05:07 PM
0

So you believe that "I'm right and if you don't agree with me I'll use violence against you" is a good argument. So you're wrong.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 05:05 PM
-1

How do you think people get into prison and don't leave until the end of their sentence?
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:35 PM
0

Your view is incredibly simplistic. If saying that it's wrong to ruin peoples' lives to further an agenda of "equality" or to agitate the public against unjust laws is "simplistic" then sure, I'll even embrace that label. There is no rule of law. You're dogmatically assuming that the "rule of law" is necessarily a good/the best thing. If you lock 4 men and 4 women up under your scheme, and under my scheme 4 men and 3 women, by what logic do you presume to steal that 4th woman's life away from he…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:00 PM
0

Treating people equally under the law is justice. No. Treating people equally under just laws is justice. Treating people equally or unequally under unjust laws is not justice -- by definition. Ergo regardless of how people are treated under an unjust law -- such as one which attempts to redefine reality (e.g. "statutory rape") -- it is still not justice. The only concern then is what kind of treatment produces the most justice and that would be letting anyone off who you can.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 03:37 PM
0

demanding justice You were talking about the law, not justice. You're trying to re-frame the argument again...
/r/MensRights24/06/12 03:07 PM
-2

No, what I'm saying is that if a law is unjust, it is unjust for all (as the law is meant to apply to all equally), in which case it should be reformed or repealed. Repealed. Equal treatment under the law is vital so that all people can escape injustice You're trying to fallaciously re-frame the argument. Your point in this argument isn't that it's "vital so that all people can escape injustice" rather it's that it's "vital so no person can escape injustice". I'm saying no one should be sacrific…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 01:59 PM
0

I believe in statutory rape as certain states define it (under fifteen with the perpetrator being over 18, for instance). Children can't give meaningful consent to a wide variety of things, including sex. So you believe violence is an acceptable way to settle disputes?
/r/MensRights24/06/12 01:24 PM
-3

No I claimed this particular MRA holds a ridiculous position.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 01:12 PM
-2

So what you're saying is that we should sacrifice the lives and property of innocent people just to create "momentum to repeal unjust laws". People and their lives are not your playthings.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 01:11 PM
0

It's not about "getting off easy". You shouldn't have to get off any way but "scot free" when you haven't done anything wrong.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 12:23 PM
-1

Even if the laws are not what you want them to be, you can still support men and women being treated equally, held to the same standard, under the laws as they currently are. No I can't. I celebrate every person -- regardless of gender -- who escapes unjust laws. It's not that I want men and women to be treated equally. I want them to be treated equally and justly. As it stands now they're treated in neither way. But I'll take "justly" over "equally" where I can get it.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 12:13 PM
1

professional ethics. Which has nothing to do with the law. Thank-you for trying though.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 11:58 AM
-5

So why is it against the law for men to do it? Who cares? It shouldn't be. What are feminists doing to correct that? They're not, ergo: Showing some serious feminist thought patterns here. We don't want to be like feminists -- fight for men rather than equality. We're supposed to be better than that.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 10:16 AM
-2

She should go to prison based on the laws we have in place. No. I don't think you understand what "should" means. If the laws that are in place are unjust then people should not go to prison in accordance with them. I think the law isn't really fair and I disagree with it, but she should still follow them What gives "the law" -- and whoever makes it -- the right to force her -- that's all "the law" is, you can speak loftily of it all you want, it's just a series of edicts which aims to legitimiz…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 08:06 AM
4

statutorily raped You either raped someone or you didn't rape them. You didn't "statutorily rape" someone. The government can't redefine reality by fiat. Rape is when you have sex with someone by force who doesn't want it. "Statutory rape" is not that, so it's not rape.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 08:02 AM
-2

Yes she should should go to prison Why? Did the student not want it and she forced herself upon him?
/r/MensRights24/06/12 08:01 AM
-1

That doesn't make it right to punish innocent people, or to revel in their undeserved punishment.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 08:00 AM
6

I'm sorry but shouldn't we be saying that she should not be in prison, rather than mocking her plight in prison? I mean it's not as though she raped that boy/these boys (at least as far as I can tell). Showing some serious feminist thought patterns here. We're the first to get outraged when a man is convicted in this sort of situation, but you're going sit here and mock a woman that it happened to? No sexism means no sexism against men or women.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:32 AM
-4

Giving a fuck negatively affects your blood pressure.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 10:04 AM
2

I hate cases like this. She didn't rape him, there shouldn't be criminal proceedings.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 06:57 AM
-4

I guess the difference is that I don't subscribe to/post in/read shitty sub-reddits like r/atheism.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 02:32 AM
-4

I've never seen anyone get shitty with a woman for being a women when it was actually relevant. I think this pretty much sums of the "problem" quite nicely, while it is pretty crass and laden with 4chan culture.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 12:51 AM
10

If you don't like being part of this "gaggle", just don't. Everyone seems to forget that you're not being coerced into a relationship -- of any variety -- with a woman. As a man who detests traditional, committed, monogamous relationships I don't want people running around calling my ideal relationship model "objectification", it's just how I choose to carry on inter-personal relationships. If you don't like it, you don't have to take part. That's the great part of everything voluntary.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 12:14 AM
2

Improving access to child care or offering stronger protections for workers who leave the workforce temporarily to raise children, as some other advanced industrialized nations do Am I the only one who says "no" to this? Your employer pays you to work, not get knocked up and go home and spend time with your kids.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 12:10 AM
2

No. "[V]iolence" itself makes no assertions about the reasons for it. Shooting someone trying to break into your home is "violence", but it is not wrong. Inversely trying to break into someone's home is "violence", but is wrong. Ergo, violence against men or women is not wrong no matter what, it is wrong when it is not used defensively.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:42 AM
-7

Don't see why this is being downvoted...gave you an upvote FWIW...
/r/MensRights22/06/12 02:33 AM
2

leaders of the free world Has it ever occurred to anyone else that this is kind of a contradiction-in-terms?
/r/MensRights22/06/12 02:09 AM
8

violence against women is wrong no matter what. Which is just as wrong as if you said the same thing about men.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 12:31 AM
-9

Sure but that's only if your analysis is based on "big gov". Government doesn't have to be generally intrusive in all areas -- as it is now -- to be unnecessarily intrusive in some area.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 10:25 AM
-11

I fail to see how it's a fallacy. But if Stockholm Syndrome works for you I mean keep it up doing great so far.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 10:18 AM
-8

maternal custody Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic-at-hand.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 09:52 AM
-22

You guys still support government right? Hahahahaha...
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:29 AM
2

Is it incorrect to expect equal protection under the law? No but you're clouding the issue. You made a broad statement about "fairness and equality", not just equality. Now you've narrowed it to "equality" only. "[E]qual protection under the law" is a nice sound bite, but it's not really what people want. If accused rapists were presumed guilty until they could prove their innocence -- regardless of the gender of the accused -- this would be "equal protection under the law" -- an equal lack of p…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 09:00 PM
2

So...I shouldn't prevent my child from experiencing pain...? You should try to prevent your child from experiencing pain. Why does ANYONE force their definition of need on anyone? They shouldn't be able to. You NEED to be a good person What is "good"? you NEED a job What if I have a trust fund or source of income from somewhere other than a job? Sometimes you NEED to get searched for the betterment of people if you have a deadly weapon Why? What's wrong with "hav[ing] a deadly weapon"? Second am…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:04 PM
2

As a parent, you would do whatever you humanly could to prevent your child from experience any pain at all, especially the pain that a root canal would create. Just because you would do something doesn't mean that you should. Besides, a lot of parents are utterly convinced that neo-natally circumcising their child was, in fact, in their child's best interest, and would "prevent [their] child from experienc[ing] [...] pain". So I'll ask you again: Why should you be able to force your definition/i…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:13 PM
2

In what legal sense does a third grader have the maturity to consent to a search? You asked about the legal sense and then point out that I answered in the legal sense. Jesus, you're really grasping at straws here. You're not quoting me there, you realize that, right? I can't comprehend what you're trying to say here. We complain about false rape allegations. Who locks you up for rape/ruins your life if you're thusly accused? The government. We complain about alimony. Who extracts alimony from y…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:12 PM
1

Unfortunately, mandatory means mandatory. Which is totally irrelevant. you're going to have problems That really depends on what you subjectively feel to be a "problem". A parent that causes their child to have a root canal is generally acting in their best interest That really depends on what you subjectively feel to be "their best interest". You're still avoiding the root question: Why should you be able to force your definition/interpretation of "need" on anyone?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:26 PM
-1

Minors can't consent. Wrong. Minors can consent but the law doesn't acknowledge this. Stop committing the fallacy of conflating what the law recognizes with reality. "Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it?" --Robert Bolt Once the law is written, it should be applied No. The whole issue of the men's rights movement -- and any movem…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:24 PM
2

You're right in that if you don't want to be searched, don't consent to it. However, in some situations, you aren't given the option to consent. In those situations, shouldn't the amount of discomfort on part of the person being searched be reduced to as little as possible? You simply should never have to submit to a mandatory search. However, the root canal, if not taken care of, will cause an obscene amount of pain. And there are situations wherein a neo-natal circumcision can prevent "an obsc…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:05 PM
0

society I don't see how "society" has any place deciding what a person may do given that the person receiving that action has said that it is okay, and that it does not affect any other person. For the most part the law does reflect what society considers right vs wrong. And people mostly presume that males accused of rape are guilty, there are exceptions but, since you're deferring to society's judgement not actual justice, sit down and shut up.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:00 PM
-2

because you don't know the first thing about the law No it's because in questions of right and wrong the law is irrelevant. If the law is relevant to such questions we should shut this subreddit down and leave because the injustices meted out to men under the law are all right as a consequence of them being part of the law.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:50 PM
2

What about mandatory searches? TSA? You can't just DECLINE a search by TSA. That is, unless you wanna spend some time in a holding cell. You're putting forth one problem as an answer to another problem. Instead of compounding problems we should reduce/eliminate them. Having a root canal due to possible future complications can require parental consent. It's not a procedure that a child would like to endure, but it's still something that needs to be done. Circumcision, however, does not NEED, key…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:47 PM
0

So you're saying we should solve problems with more problems? What a great plan!
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:19 PM
1

No I'm saying that putting people in groups and giving those groups "rights" is absolutely the wrong way to go about things because it's a guarantee that someone will always be oppressed. Men "don't have rights" because they're not a member of a group that's actively campaigned for -- such as women, gays, et cetera. If people were treated as individuals rather than as groups then this problem wouldn't exist. This is why collectivism is bad.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:08 PM
2

regardless of how uncomfortable that may be for the person being searched. If it's uncomfortable for them then they shouldn't consent to it. It's simple. Circumcision =/= strip search. One is forcibly removing a part of the genitalia. The other is not. They aren't equal situations. So "legal guardian[s] or parent[s]" should be able to consent for children -- even if the children themselves would not otherwise consent -- in some situations, but not others, because...?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:06 PM
3

these groups have received all their rights already!!! Which is the problem. You shouldn't have rights because you're a member of a group, you should have rights because you're an individual.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:04 PM
-2

laws can Yeah but just because laws can doesn't mean laws should. I mean laws can impose a massive burden of proof on accused rapists, you going to argue for that as well? should have received PROPER consent from a legal guardian or parent So if a child shouldn't be able to give "PROPER [sic] consent" for themselves, and their "legal guardian or parent" has to, why shouldn't the "legal guardian or parent" not be able to consent to neo-natal circumcision, but the child should be able to when they…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:37 PM
-6

I'm sorry you're going to have to sort this out for me: I said that if you don't want to be searched, you shouldn't allow someone to search you. You said irrelevant because someone wrote laws on some paper. I said this isn't a good argument because this sub-reddit's primary purpose is railing against unjust laws. You said well in another situation, laws, and I said that again those laws aren't a good argument, and now you seem to be without a counter-argument or think that somehow I'm arguing yo…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 03:47 PM
-9

He would still be getting his ass handed to him by the judge in his court hearing. Regardless of whether or not she "consented". Which doesn't make it right.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 03:36 PM
-24

In what legal sense does a man have a right to equal custody, to not pay alimony, et cetera? Either the law is a good argument or it isn't. Don't be intellectually dishonest.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:42 PM
-31

To avoid being strip searched, you should probably not say "search me" to people...
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:43 AM
2

I think your employer should be able to ask you for whatever information you want as a condition of employment. Nice that they let you opt out.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:22 AM
2

Not wanting to get into a permanent relationship -- i.e. marriage -- with someone for any reason is not an "evil" let alone a "greater" one. It's your life, your emotions, etc.. You don't have to justify not wanting to spend your life with someone else to anyone, period, and questioning someone's judgement therein is utterly invalid because it's not your life. You keep invoking "marriage vows" as if they're supposed to mean something, but what is a "vow". It's simply when you give someone your w…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:20 AM
2

If you have a right to not have a husband, then you necessarily have a right not to have a husband that looks at porn, since by not having a husband you do not have a husband that looks at porn. You should really learn some basic logic before you: A. Make assertions. B. Call other people "fucking idiot[s]".
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:12 AM
2

She has no right to not have a husband that looks at porn You are an idiot. People don't have to get married. People can get divorced. She has a right to not have a husband for any reason she wants.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:02 AM
2

It's not "[m]oral relativism" to defer to someone else's opinion about how they lead their personal life. That's called "common decency". There is no "one size fits all" set of preferences for everyone. Some men prefer large women, some prefer small women, some prefer blondes, some prefer brunettes, some even prefer other men, are you going to come out and say that homosexuals, or those who prefer large women, or any other inclination "ha[ve] a problem, not a preference"? She wants a man who has…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:56 AM
2

The real crime here is the wife's misunderstanding of the difference between sexual addiction and sexual relief... Her ignorance is going to break up her family. This is not the issue at all. Her reasons are irrelevant. The OP admits that he knew -- while they were dating -- that pornography etc. would be "an instant deal-breaker [sic]". He lied to her and because of the lie -- because the truth would've been "an instant deal-breaker [sic]" -- they continued dating and eventually married and had…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:38 AM
2

Please do explain how it's "horrific ignorance". And while you're at it, why don't you explain how other personal preferences -- homosexuality, BDSM, etc. -- aren't.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:49 AM
1

What "ignorance"? She wants something, and she took the steps necessary to be sure that she was actualizing on that something. The husband -- in his desire to be "with her" -- manipulated and misled her into believing that her desires were being satisfied. There's nothing "ignoran[t]" about having desires and trying to fulfill them. The only "ignorance" she's guilty of is being naïve enough to trust a pathological liar and a worthless excuse for a man. Stop being such a pussy. Your pussy attitud…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:47 AM
2

Marriage vows don't involve not looking at porn Do they involve blatantly lying to your spouse? Besides, if he lied about one thing why wouldn't he lie about another? A "vow" is only as good as your word, and his word -- apparently -- is utterly worthless since he pathologically lied to his spouse for years. Why are you making excuses for the wife's staggering level of ignorance? I'm not "making excuses". Personal preferences are not mine -- or yours -- to question and therefore there's no need …
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:45 AM
1

Negative predispositions, simply for the sake of tradition, isn't exactly something to be proud of or to encourage. I never said that anyone should be proud of them, nor did I encourage them, I said that people have a right to have prejudices just as you have a right not to have them. You should have to change who you are, simply to please women. Definitely not. You shouldn't be concerned with pleasing anyone but yourself. So your solution is "just spend your entire life alone"? My solution is n…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:00 AM
0

No.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:05 AM
1

If you're a woman you can do this with little to no penalties. If you're a man however, you will be penalized in nearly every aspect of your life(personally, professionally, romantically, socially, etc) and you will be harassed for it. Okay and? If people want to examine some aspect of you -- whether you're masculine or feminine, for example -- and judge you based on it, why and how should you be able to stop them? Moreover, how is this different than say, dressing up for an interview or obeying…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:05 AM
13

Don't want to be masculine/feminine (depending on your gender)? Don't, no one's forcing you. Don't want women to stay at home? Don't marry/get involved with a woman who wants to be "a mom". Think porn and prostitution give women an "unfair advantage"? Don't buy it. The views of MRAs on these matters should be private and irrelevant to the Men's Rights movement as a whole. You don't need a "right" to be feminine (etc.) as a man -- you can already do that (i.e. it's already a right you possess). O…
/r/MensRights19/06/12 10:14 PM
0

Of course they do. I don't think you understand how a "right" works. I don't have to spend time with anyone if I don't want to. As an extension of this I can unilaterally set relationship rules.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 08:07 PM
0

What's your point?
/r/MensRights19/06/12 08:04 PM
0

She didn't "compel" or "coerce" anything. She asked a question, he answered, because of his answer she chose to continue pursuing a relationship with him. Her continued presence was contingent on the answer to the question remaining constant. Does she not have a right to deny another of her presence/company/love for whatever reason she desires?
/r/MensRights19/06/12 07:40 PM
0

Of course she has a right to demand whatever she wants. A demand is not force in and of itself. A demand is merely an urgent enunciation of one's desires. I can demand whatever I want, it does not mean that anyone must provide it.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 07:36 PM
2

This problem is 100% her making. Asking a man not to beat off is like asking a fish not to swim. Irrelevant. He didn't have to date/marry/have kids with her, nor her with him. She could've left him and pursued other interests, or found no one if her standards were so unreasonable. The point is that he manipulated her into entering a relationship/marriage/etc. with him by presenting a deliberately fabricated image of himself. The man that she married/fell in love with/etc. doesn't actually exist …
/r/MensRights19/06/12 07:27 PM
9

His wife has a "right" to ask anything of him she pleases. Freedom of speech exists. r/mensrights is a place to argue for equality for men, not for the oppression of women because their liberation exposes men to inconveniences. Moreover, he lied to her, is she not right to feel betrayed? I know that when my trust is broken I feel betrayed and resent the other person. I took their word at face value, and they used my trust/naïveté (depending on how jaded you're feeling) for their own advantage at…
/r/MensRights19/06/12 07:13 PM
2

I don't understand why you're posting this here? Are you trying to come into this sub-reddit and magically convince us all to become pro-circumcision or circumcision agnostic, or are you trying to point out the blatant stupidity of the pro-circumcision or circumcision agnostic camp? You're going to fail in the former, and the latter is totally unnecessary. It's blatantly obvious how idiotic those who are in favour of routine, unnecessary neo-natal mutilation are. Moreover: The title is misleadin…
/r/MensRights19/06/12 04:50 PM
-1

Government doesn't spend money on men, we bitch. Government spends money on men, we bitch. Personally I prefer the former, but...
/r/MensRights18/06/12 10:39 AM
5

The real issue here is the overflow of emotion into lawmaking. It's fine for emotion to influence your opinions, but laws are totally different. If it is my opinion that all people accused of rape are guilty, I can harbour resentment etc. against them, but I cannot justly go out and initiate physical violence to punish them (which is what jailing someone is -- a violent act). However, if the law states that all people accused of rape are guilty (or something close to this), then officers can "ju…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 09:56 AM
1

Not really. Some men are idiots. I'm not one of them. I'm more concerned with the laws that target men unfairly. "Laws" means guns and violence against me. Some bitch trying to seduce me I can just say "no" to.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 09:31 AM
12

Of course it is -- that women feel they have a right to use violence to exist in a privileged state. But you can't go on deluding yourself into believing that feminists are misguided and actually want equality. They want superiority. They want to denigrate and prostrate men. It's a core element of their philosophy, not an unintended side effect.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 10:40 PM
11

Why You really think there's a good logical reason? Have you been visiting this subreddit long?
/r/MensRights17/06/12 10:29 PM
16

If men aren't vilified then reasonable people won't allow the feminists to achieve their goals, since their goals all come at the expense of men.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 10:12 PM
12

If his then-wife ran off with the kid(s) to be with her new boyfriend, shouldn't it be a fairly open and shut case? Nevermind, I was living in the realm of logic and reason again...my bad...
/r/MensRights16/06/12 09:51 AM
2

I agree that neo-natal circumcision is a travesty, but this article doesn't really get into specifics: Do they want to ban adult males choosing to have a circumcision for religious reasons? I think that's totally legitimate.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 09:14 AM
1

Seems to me European countries are pretty fucked either way. You know with the bankruptcy and the socialism...
/r/MensRights14/06/12 07:19 AM
2

Oh look another bad idea from government. I'm so surprised...
/r/MensRights14/06/12 07:05 AM
-1

Do you ever feel like the only non-Nazi? Being that I am an anarcho-capitalist, yes, most of the time. Interestingly enough it happens a lot even in this subreddit, so don't go off imagining you're too enlightened... ; )
/r/MensRights14/06/12 04:03 AM
1

I would claim that society is collaborative structure involving many people. Yes and the people collaborate in ways which and because they feel it is in their best interests. You don't go to work out of some altruistic desire to perform the work you do for the betterment of others, you do it because you need money, which you'll in turn give to someone who wants it, so you can get what you want in turn. Society is an abstraction on top of everyone pursuing their own ends. It only appears to exist…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:12 PM
1

You're dropping "society" to try and legitimize actions that it would be abhorrent for any individual to undertake. This is the disguise that enables government to seem legitimate in the first place. There is no "society". A "society" is merely a grouping of individuals each pursuing their own ends. People do not -- or should not -- gain rights when there are merely more of them. If you own yourself, that isn't diminished merely because 2 people disagree with you rather than 1. Similarly, it is …
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:19 PM
1

So to what extent do children own themselves, if they can't -- in your opinion -- consent to have other people damage or use their bodies for pleasure? And why, and when, do they suddenly go from not owning themselves to owning themselves? After all, if you own something, you can let someone else use it, or you can destroy it, it's your prerogative. Basically you're saying that because of their age -- i.e. a factor beyond their control -- children own themselves less than adults do. Also: If chi…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:46 PM
1

If being exploited post-surgery were truly "a thing" -- or became such -- you could definitely leave written notice with the medical professionals tending to you that you did not consent to any acts until such time as you were once again 100% aware of yourself and your surroundings.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:42 PM
1

Consent can be withdrawn. It's my body, why shouldn't I be able to let my partner have sex with me while I'm sleeping?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:41 PM
1

And I'm saying that even if we use the absolutely literal definition of consent, and concede that those instances are not rape, you've still committed some other crime so you won't escape justice.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:10 AM
1

your common sense/morals to determine if the person you are considering having sex with is actually in a mental state to understand what is going on. And then when a judge and jury happens to disagree with me I deserve to have my life shredded before my eyes. someone holding a gun to your head (or your loved ones head) and saying have sex with me or I will kill you How does this have anything to do with what we're talking about. Threatening someone with physical harm is illegal independent of ag…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:57 AM
1

If you don't think a 40 year old can rape a 4 year old My question was whether or not he could but rather whether or not any sex between them was necessarily rape. I'm not arguing for the abolishment of rape, I'm saying that if you want to do something to another person and that person does not protest or resist, and in fact welcomes you, that it's not something you can rightfully respond to with violence. but it would be thought provoking and beneficial for society. And in the meantime, perhaps…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:51 AM
1

So you would not consider a 40 year old having sex with a 4 year old to be rape? If it was mutually consensual, no: "The act of forcing sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon another person, without their consent and/or against their will." I would argue that it most certainly is, regardless of any circumstances, because a 4 year old is in no way able to understand the situation. What's your point? You're imposing the onus for his lack of understanding on his partner. Are people suppos…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:13 AM
3

You can be skeptical if you want, but your position is analogous to "all people who think gay marriage should be legal are themselves gay".
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:02 AM
0

If you concede that consensual activity can be arbitrarily reclassified as non-consensual, then the feminists win and you have no non-hypocritical counterpoints to use against them.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:59 AM
2

Just because I don't believe in violence to prevent consensual activity does not mean I enjoy or otherwise partake in the activity-in-question.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:57 AM
6

but there's also a lot of junk that's hateful or missing the point of human rights. Such as...? You can't really say stuff like that, unquantified, and expect to be taken seriously. "Human rights" and "hate" have taken on such broad meanings that it's really impossible to take them seriously anymore. I hear a lot of SRS bashing, but from what I've seen of SRS, there's a lot of good insight into the hive-mind hatred that is sometimes prevalent on Reddit. Rofl. I've had run-ins with people from SR…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:41 AM
2

By this logic, we shouldn't have laws at all. For any type of crime, you can find a case where the perpetrator felt they were in the right. So then we have two options: come together as a society to say, "no, some things are absolutely not allowed," like rape and murder...or just complete lawlessness. You don't need to have laws per se for a society to be peaceful and relatively orderly. There are some things that go beyond any law -- murder, rape, assault, et cetera. Those things -- if not codi…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:30 AM
0

But I feel like, as an adult (or two adults, seeing as that's what the other person would be considered in this case) you/they should be able to judge that to the best of your abilities. But what is an "adult"? Someone over 16? Someone that you -- or some other arbitrary person/group -- judge to be capable? Why should anyone -- regardless of age or mental handicap -- be able to impose something like that on another person: "Have sex with me" they ask/offer. But if you accept some third party wil…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:09 AM
1

And if you can't understand, but make the decision anyway, you deserve to be able to violently throw the other, hapless person in a cage for a few years and give him a status that follows him around forever and ruins his life?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 01:52 AM
0

How is that relevant? Why should you be able to punish other people for your problems?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 01:46 AM
1

I don't see why someone should be able to use violence against another person because that person had consensual relations with someone with a mental impairment. I.e. why should your mental impairment land me in jail?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 01:41 AM
2

It was consensual and should be treated as such. Which is what I'm saying. Just because someone is above/below the arbitrary age of consent line doesn't mean they can't be raped. You can rape a 35 year old in much the same way as you'd rape a 15 year old. Non-consensual sex is still rape, even in the absence of an age of consent. Eliminating the age of consent would just eliminate a massive category of victimless crimes.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 01:31 AM
2

And I'm not using violence How do you think all those statutory "rapists" got into prison? Judge asked them nicely?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 01:06 AM
-1

but they are there for protection and there is a certain age at which sex is not an acceptable thing. In your opinion. Why should you be able to use violence to force your opinion on other people? Isn't that the main beef of this sub-reddit? You may think that your opinion is somehow better than other peoples', but don't you think feminists feel the same way? In order to actually achieve equality you have to reject the idea that some group of people -- regardless of how large or small -- has a r…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 12:58 AM
-5

What do you mean? Age of consent laws must go. It's ageism at best, entrapment at worst.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 11:17 PM
2

Wut
/r/MensRights12/06/12 08:26 PM
4

Well it explicitly talks about "underage" girls. The fact that having sex with a person who's willing and who may seek out that sex independent any advances by you can land you in jail solely because of their age is a major problem with sex-related law today.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 08:15 PM
12

"Statutory rape" is not rape. You can't change the nature of something by fiat.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 08:07 PM
2

the country Jumping to conclusions, are we?
/r/MensRights09/06/12 03:55 AM
2

If you own something, you can sell it to someone else. If you own something, you can destroy it. If you own something, no one else can do anything to it but you. The state denies these three basic principles as it pertains to our ownership of ourselves because of exactly what you stated. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself -- into slavery, for example. But the state forbids it -- the state owns you more than you own you. If you own yourself, you can destroy yourself -- by committing suici…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 10:12 PM
2

We're back to Stockholm Syndrome.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:22 PM
21

NOBODY is arguing that we should let my friend who impregnated his girlfriend off the hook. If you play, you must pay. Unless, of course, you're a woman in which case you can just get an abortion-on-demand. Men need to be able to "opt out" in the same way that women can.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:19 PM
2

If marriage is a "legal contract" then the state doesn't define it, the people drafting the contract do.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:13 PM
2

Stockholm Syndrome is when captives emotionally connect with their takers, to the point of defending their captors or visiting them in prison. The state uses violent coercion ruthlessly against those who disagree with it or act counter to its edicts, and yet you sit here and defend it. Ergo, Stockholm Syndrome.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:40 PM
2

Of course, and we lower beings should all grovel at its feet begging for our rights. You have Stockholm Syndrome.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:28 PM
1

Socialism and all Marxist philosophies are fundamentally incompatible with men's rights.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:52 PM
6

The state should not define marriage at all.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:41 PM
1

I was glad to see this there.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 04:17 PM
2

there may be some verbal / emotional abuse here. Which comes back to -- again -- that the father should have a conversation or just leave.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:16 PM
14

It's not "forbidden" for your Dad to look at pornography, it's just that your mother doesn't/didn't like him doing it. Males (and female) looking at pornography is something that happens, that people know and accept happens, and which is not illegal. If your father feels a double standard exists, then he should address it with your mother -- he's a big boy. There's no coercion here, so the double standard exists unchallenged because your father allows it to.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:46 PM
1

When I used to work in retail, both men and women had to knock at the doors of the opposite sex staff bathroom before going in to empty trash etc..
/r/MensRights06/06/12 03:47 PM
-1

How is this a men's rights issue? You don't hack into computer systems, it's against the law. Either question the validity of an anti-hacking law, or accept it. Either way this isn't a male-specific issue.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:18 AM
2

You guys still think government is a good idea?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:17 PM
0

I don't see how this is a "men's rights" issue.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:00 PM
8

Maybe you should stop frequenting that bar if you disagree with their pricing?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 02:09 AM
2

What do you mean "taken"?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 12:57 AM
3

I don't think you can give a free pass, but you can still respect them. But why do that for them and not for people who aren't in your family? I never understood this "special status" people give to their family for no reason at all.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 11:44 PM
11

You assume here that his sister must be massively sexist in order to participate. No I didn't. OP may not have expressed to her that he finds it offensive? That's his problem. That's why I asked questions rather than making statements.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 10:37 PM
2

I disagree. That's the reasoning behind a lot of the fundie Christians kicking out their children because they're atheist/gay etc. So you're saying that it's correct to tolerate a value -- let's say homosexuality, for the sake of argument -- in your family, but to not tolerate it in not-your-family? Why should your family get a free pass on living up to your standards just because of who they were born to?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 10:36 PM
7

Family doesn't get a free pass on having values you find abhorrent.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 09:48 PM
10

Why do you care about your sister's feelings? She's taking part in a sexist event and you don't support sexism. Did she not participate because she didn't want to hurt your feelings?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 07:18 PM
0

How does this contribute to this sub-reddit I don't understand?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 02:28 AM
6

Why is "commitment" always held up as some sort of virtue? I don't get/accept it.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 02:31 AM
1

Also a lot of socialist/leftist bullshit in there... ...I guess that goes hand-in-hand with "feminst"...
/r/MensRights29/05/12 09:09 PM
3

What's the problem?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:51 PM
1

That was mostly terrible.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:45 PM
-1

im actually working at pursuing a career. Yeah a career where you can be a lazy bum and mooch off the taxpayer while you brutalize them. So laudable, good job!
/r/MensRights29/05/12 06:30 PM
-2

am currently studying to take a civil service exam to become a cop. And now I don't have any more sympathy for you.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 06:22 PM
17

You guys still carrying on your Stockholm Syndrome love affair with the state?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:53 PM
13

Closed the link as soon as she dropped the wage gap "statistic". If you want to earn as much as men, don't take time off to have children. It's really that simple...
/r/MensRights29/05/12 02:32 AM
-4

I like how MRAs see this, see that it's wrong, see that these women could've ruined the cab drivers' life, but don't question it beyond concluding that it's wrong. Why could they have ruined his life? Well the state would've punished him, would've kept/published a record of his misdeeds, and would've enforced limitations on him. The arbitrary power of the state is all that enables this kind of behaviour. And yet there are MRAs who are statists. It's utterly ridiculous. So long as you delude your…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 03:36 AM
0

she I heard one is a representative sample set.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 09:46 PM
160

I don't believe in "gay rights", I believe in individual rights. People don't have rights because they're gay, women, et cetera, they have rights because they're people.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 02:16 PM
0

I was feeling sorry for the dude until: "[...] jailing her boyfriend on drug charges." Maybe he should be in jail?
/r/MensRights22/05/12 09:00 PM
4

That really isn't a great response at all: He threatens violence against someone who has never wronged him. Raising a son who rapes someone isn't a crime under the law, nor is it a moral crime as you were not the one who committed the act of violence (your son was). Therefore the threat "if he ever touched her without her consent I'd kill you" is a jackbooted attempt at intimidation. Recognizing "looking like a slut" as a cause of rape is not shifting blame to the victim. It is merely recognizin…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 05:56 PM
2

Dude I'm an anarcho-capitalist you're preaching to the choir!
/r/MensRights21/05/12 04:33 AM
23

I heard one member of each gender is a good sample size.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 03:13 PM
5

are there any pros of marriage? There really aren't, especially from a male point-of-view. In the current legal climate, marriage really is the ultimate legal denial of a male's rights. When you choose to get married you essentially forfeit your rights to your property (divorce settlements etc.), your posterity (custody etc.), and your livelihood/fruit of your labour (alimony). Sure, there are little pros like tax breaks and sharing insurance, but those are totally cancelled out by the massive c…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 11:47 AM
2

No.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 09:02 AM
0

Why would this be a problem? I'm not the organizer of the event, neither am I. It's not our call to make. Why should men have to bare that extra cost? They don't "have to". It's a private event. The government is not using violence to compel you to pay. Men can simply elect not to go.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 05:32 PM
1

I just think it's dispicable. Well that really depends -- what's motivating them to do this? Maybe there's not enough women at deadmau5 concerts, and they want more of them so the guys have a better time? I know nothing about deadmau5 or their concerts, just saying, when you reduce the cost on something, you typically get more buyers, so it would be useful to know why the cost for women is lower.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 09:22 AM
1

That really depends what you mean by "okay". Should it be permissible in that they should be allowed to do it without threats of violence or actual violence -- i.e. government involvement to enforce a "right" -- yes.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 09:02 AM
-3

I don't see a problem with it. This is Men's Rights, right? You don't have a right to go to any particular concert at all, let alone at a fair/competition/gender neutral price.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 08:27 AM
5

Will men form their own party? I really hope not. We don't need more single issue bullshit. We don't need "court[ing]" of a voting bloc -- in this case, men. That'll just end up the same way that feminism has wound up, and that's not okay.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 03:48 PM
3

That's because the difference is whether the woman in question enjoys it and doesn't provide it for money-- i.e. it's not "clear".
/r/MensRights07/05/12 11:53 PM
4

There really is no good argument against them. It's not as though the women were picked up off the street and forced to pose, they were paid and probably paid well. So the women are voluntarily objectified in return for money that they need/want. That's not "misogynistic" at all. It's not that it's "to [sic] harsh", it's that it doesn't apply at all. "Misogyny" is "hatred or contepmt" of women. Paying women to pose a certain way and take/publish pictures of them isn't hating women any more than …
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:49 PM
3

Why would they be? Is it just me or is there widespread misunderstanding of what "misogyny" actually is?
/r/MensRights07/05/12 08:57 PM
13

The real problem that society suffers from is government. And the reason that society suffers from government is because it takes coordinated special interests and foists them on other people. Men's centres and women's centres are both clearly permissible -- i.e. it is not illegal or immoral to construct or maintain either one. The problem that exists is that government -- through taxation (i.e. extortion) -- funnels money to one of these causes without the consent of those paying simply because…
/r/MensRights05/05/12 08:07 AM
1

In its current form, sure, and if it was happy in its current form then yes. But the PCC is politically pressuring to get real powers. Also: How can you be against self-regulation, but also be opposed to censorship? Government regulation of media is censorship, plain and simple. And no, I don't think that media should have to "answer" to anyone. What, exactly, do they have to answer for? All they do is publish things. They don't hold guns to anyone's head, they don't hurt anyone, they just find …
/r/MensRights05/05/12 06:22 AM
1

I don't believe in government censors or media regulation and yet that's what the PCC is trying to become. By complaining to them you're only expanding their case for becoming a body with legal powers. Of course most people in r/mensrights don't understand this anti-state mentality, because they -- like all oppressed groups -- have come down with Stockholm Syndrome and beg on bended knee for the oppressor to set them free. But whatever, this isn't the first time I've been downvoted on this sub-r…
/r/MensRights05/05/12 03:35 AM
-39

Have a downvote.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 05:06 PM
14

Disagreeing with someone is "insulting", but only if their viewpoint is the politically correct viewpoint. Get with the program...God...
/r/MensRights04/05/12 01:01 AM
3

Have we started scare quoting "rape" yet?
/r/MensRights02/05/12 09:17 PM
12

Whether you actually did anything wrong or not, the worst thing you can do is admit to doing it. If the choice is between admitting guilt and definitely being dismissed, or going before "a panel", choose the panel for sure.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 09:24 PM
1

It's not even that some men are stupid, it's that societal norms are.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:36 PM
1

I don't think that it's about not being a match -- unless there's more than you haven't told me -- I think it's more about the fact that you're not going to surround yourself with people who actively advocate against your interests/natural rights.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 10:26 PM
1

You should give yourself an opportunity to expose her to your ideas, but if she won't see, leave. Would you surround yourself with people who were vocal about wanting to beat you, steal from you, exploit you, et cetera? Then don't surround yourself with statists and people who call for your oppression.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 10:19 PM
2

And? You are a feminist therefore you are a leftist does not imply you are a leftist therefore you are a feminist. See: If vs. iff.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 06:44 PM
10

Yeah but it's true. Feminism is decidedly a leftist ideal.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:50 PM
27

Well, it doesn't make sense for men's rights activists to be either liberal or conservative. Whereas liberals tend to support feminism -- still seeing females as disadvantaged -- conservatives tend to support traditional gender roles, neither of which men's rights activists support. You'd think that MRAs would fall more into this category, but people who've been wronged by the state seem to come down with a case of Stockholm Syndrome...
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:45 PM
1

Yes I know. The "[p]roblem, feminists?" line was supposed to invoke the imagery of the trollface. : P
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:59 PM
1

Well then, there's the problem.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:52 PM
9

My mother quit her job when I was young to stay home with us, and ran a successful home business that brought in more money than her previous, non-stay at home job. ¯\(o.O)/¯ Problem, feminists?
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:51 PM
3

Then don't buy from them! :D I love the free market!
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:04 PM
0

Well as long as it's not the government doing it I don't care.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:50 PM
2

Tyranny of the majority is the only thing I can think of, but that may not be exactly what you're looking for.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 12:29 AM
3

Just because a majority engages in a certain behaviour, does not mean -- as the fallacy of composition asserts -- that all members are engaging in that behaviour. Consider this: The majority of people -- about 51% -- of people in the U.S. are female. Could we therefore say that all people in the U.S. are female?
/r/MensRights14/04/12 12:01 AM
11

When trying to refute collectivism fallacy of division and fallacy of composition are excellent tools to be able to invoke.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:49 PM
17

I was attempting to illustrate that invoking that is the proper response. Attributing rapes by men to "men" is a fallacy of composition, i.e.: Some men rape, therefore, all men are accountable for rape.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:44 PM
15

Take this, you'll need it.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:34 PM
0

A Wordpress site on a real web server would be my first, knee jerk response. But that requires money.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 08:42 PM
5

You had me up until "tumblr"...
/r/MensRights13/04/12 08:37 PM
2

Well apparently you do, since that's what you accused me of.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 01:55 AM
2

Except I've never posted there.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 01:48 AM
-1

You got proved wrong, and now you are back pedaling and trying to change the discussion. Yeah except no.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 01:48 AM
0

And, what's your point? Just because something is so, does not mean that it should be so. I mean in America people can be locked up forever with no trial because they're suspected of being a terrorist or substantially supporting a terrorist organization. This is the way things are, is this the way it should be?
/r/MensRights12/04/12 11:20 PM
2

I'm going to make sure the same exact principles apply. So instead of repudiating principles that you disagree with, you're going to accept them, embrace them, absorb them, and apply them to others. Sounds like you're fighting a winning battle!
/r/MensRights12/04/12 10:57 PM
4

It is very clear that you do not have a right to absolutely free speech. Uh-huh...
/r/MensRights12/04/12 10:56 PM
4

[...] it's unnecessary and it has no value in society whatsoever. In your opinion. Now explain to me why you have the right to use force against people who disagree with you. You can't get over dying. And the people-in-question didn't kill the person. It was called "suicide" not "murder" for a reason.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 10:54 PM
3

They didn't kill him, they didn't help him kill himself, they didn't "facilitate" the suicide at all. The suicide is on him. He chose to kill himself. I don't want to see anyone suffer for anything that they say. The things that they do is different. It's one thing to use force -- i.e. the government -- to oppress men (or women for that matter), it's another to use force because someone said something.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 10:11 PM
6

I wasn't talking about the 1st Amendment I was talking about freedom of speech as an ideal.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 10:09 PM
5

So being on a sub-reddit called "MensRights", you're hostile to freedom of speech? Classy.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 08:52 PM
2

I hope this lawsuit gets thrown out.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:27 PM
12

Why would you want to marry a woman who wants to mutilate your children?
/r/MensRights10/04/12 04:42 PM
1

I'm not saying that you're not mean-spirited for doing so, I'm just saying that you're not blaming them.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 03:14 AM
10

I hate how people say "victim blaming" when in a lot of instances people are just pointing out reasons things happened. Just because something happened to you that shouldn't've happened to you, doesn't mean that you couldn't've done things to reduce the risk of that happening. For example, let's say 1st street at 2nd street is the middle of a really bad neighbourhood, and you walk through there and get mugged. If I point out that you could've avoided this by not walking through that neighbourhoo…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:51 PM
7

As long as you debate this issue on utilitarian/consequential grounds you're going to have this problem. The issue is not whether circumcision is beneficial or not, the issue is whether it is moral or not. Arguing about its benefit vs. its drawbacks or risks just opens you up to the mire of statistics, studies, et cetera. These are things that an individual looking to have a circumcision should consider, not that someone looking to judge the morality of the practice should consider. Something --…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:03 PM
0

Why would you get out of the house just because she told you to?
/r/MensRights29/03/12 05:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter